Method of Production Labelling of Meat and Dairy ... - Labelling Matters

Method of Production Labelling of Meat and Dairy Products Research – Report For Labelling Matters 9th July 2013

Brackenhill, St George’s Place, York, YO24 1DT 01904 632039 Dephna House, 24-26 Arcadia Ave, London, N3 2JU 0208 8191397 www.qaresearch.co.uk Company registration: 3186539

Labelling Research, July 2013 Page 2

Contents 1. 2. 3. 4.

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................5 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................6 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................6 Key findings .....................................................................................................................................................7 4.1 Existing Food Labels ............................................................................................................................7 4.1.1 Perceptions of how the animals were kept...............................................................................8 4.1.2 Specific details of how the animals were kept ....................................................................... 16 4.2 Eating and Shopping Behaviour ...................................................................................................... 22 4.2.1 Purchasing behaviour for eggs, meat or milk ......................................................................... 22 4.2.2 Awareness of how farm animals are kept and reared ......................................................... 27 4.3 Existing EU Egg Labelling System ................................................................................................... 29 4.3.1 Awareness and usage of the EU egg labelling system .......................................................... 29 4.3.2 Attitudes towards the EU egg labelling system ..................................................................... 35 4.3.3 Attitudes towards method of production labelling systems .............................................. 37 4.4 Attitudes Towards Animal Welfare ............................................................................................. 41 4.4.1 Importance of animal welfare when purchasing meat and dairy products ..................... 41 4.4.2 Consideration of animal welfare when purchasing meat and dairy products ............... 44 4.4.3 Impact of food labelling on purchase of foods with high standards of welfare.............. 47 4.5 Extending the Egg Labelling System .............................................................................................. 51 4.5.1 Attitudes towards extending method of production labelling ........................................... 51 4.5.2 Attitudes towards on-farm assurance schemes .................................................................... 55 4.5.3 General attitudes towards food production, packaging and labelling .............................. 58 4.6 Poultry Labelling ................................................................................................................................ 63 4.6.1 Clarity of the proposed poultry labelling system.................................................................. 63 4.6.2 Whether would like to see system for labelling poultry meat introduced .................... 71 4.6.3 Using the proposed system for labelling poultry meat........................................................ 74 5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 76 6. Appendices................................................................................................................................................... 78 6.1 Sample Profile .................................................................................................................................... 78 6.2 Questionnaire .................................................................................................................................... 83

Project number:

SKILL08-6381

Title:

MoP Labelling Research S:\ProjectFiles\L\Labelling Matters\SKILL08-

Location:

6381_Labelling_Matters_Research_Project\Reports\Labellin g_Matters_Final_Full_Report_V1f.doc

Date:

9th July 2013

Report status:

Final

Approved by:

Nick Lynch

Authors:

Michael Fountain

Comments:

[email protected]

This research has been carried out in compliance with the International standard ISO 20252


List of Figures Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 21. Figure 22. Figure 23. Figure 24. Figure 25. Figure 26. Figure 27. Figure 28. Figure 29. Figure 30. Figure 31. Figure 32. Figure 33. Figure 34. Figure 35. Figure 36. Figure 37. Figure 38. Figure 39. Figure 40. Figure 41. Figure 42. Figure 43. Figure 44. Figure 45. Figure 46. Figure 47. Figure 48. Figure 49. Figure 50. Figure 51. Figure 52. Figure 53. Figure 54.

Perceptions of where animals kept – German - Yoghurt ................................................................................. 8 Perceptions of where animals kept – Czech Republic - Ham .......................................................................... 9 Perceptions of where animals kept – UK - Sausages ...................................................................................... 10 Perceptions of where animals kept – French - Chicken ................................................................................. 11 Perceptions of where animals kept – German - Pork .................................................................................... 12 Perceptions of where animals kept – by knowledge of farming methods ..................................................... 13 Perceptions of where animals kept – by attitudes to current food labels .................................................... 14 Descriptors for how animals were kept – German - Yoghurt ...................................................................... 16 Descriptors for how animals were kept – Czech Republic - Ham ................................................................ 17 Descriptors for how animals were kept – UK - Sausages .............................................................................. 18 Descriptors for how animals were kept – French - Chicken......................................................................... 19 Descriptors for how animals were kept – German - Pork ............................................................................ 20 Purchasing levels for eggs, meat and milk ........................................................................................................ 22 Most important influences on foods purchased .............................................................................................. 24 Influences on foods purchased - by knowledge of farming methods ............................................................. 25 Influences on foods purchased - by importance of animal welfare ................................................................ 26 Awareness of how farm animals are kept and reared .................................................................................... 27 Awareness of how farm animals are kept and reared – by importance of animal welfare.......................... 28 Awareness of EU egg labelling system.............................................................................................................. 29 Awareness of egg labelling system – by knowledge of farming methods ...................................................... 31 Awareness of the EU egg labelling system – by attitudes to current labels .................................................. 31 Eggs usually purchased....................................................................................................................................... 33 Reasons for not using the EU egg labelling system ......................................................................................... 34 Attitudes towards the EU egg labelling system ............................................................................................... 35 Attitudes towards the EU egg labelling system – by awareness of it ............................................................ 36 Attitudes towards method of production labelling systems........................................................................... 37 Attitudes towards method of production labelling systems– by attitudes to current labels ...................... 38 Attitudes towards method of production labelling systems........................................................................... 38 Why method of production labelling systems are helpful .............................................................................. 40 Animal welfare when purchasing meat and dairy products ............................................................................ 41 Identifying animal welfare friendly products .................................................................................................... 42 Identifying animal welfare friendly products – by importance of animal welfare when deciding which meat and dairy to buy ............................................................................................................. 43 Animal welfare when purchasing meat and dairy ............................................................................................ 44 Animal welfare when purchasing meat and dairy – by attitudes to food production .................................. 45 Why purchase meat and dairy with highest standards of animal welfare ..................................................... 46 Impact of clearer food labelling on purchasing of meat and dairy ................................................................. 47 Impact of clearer food labelling of purchasing of meat and dairy .................................................................. 48 Why more likely to purchase products with higher animal welfare.............................................................. 49 Why improved labelling would make no difference to likelihood to purchase products with higher animal welfare................................................................................................................................ 50 Extending method of production labelling to all meat and dairy ................................................................... 51 Extending method of production labelling to all meat and dairy – by current purchasing habits for meat and dairy ............................................................................................................................................. 52 Extending method of production labelling to all meat and dairy – by awareness of how farm animals are kept and reared ..................................................................................................................... 53 Whether method of production labelling provides clear information .......................................................... 54 Confidence provided by on-farm assurance schemes..................................................................................... 55 Confidence provided by on-farm assurance schemes – by attitude towards extending method of production labelling ...................................................................................................... 56 Preferred source of information about on-farm assurance schemes ............................................................ 57 Food and packaging: happy to see more information on food packaging............................................................ 58 Food and packaging: like to know there is information on food packaging ......................................................... 59 Food and packaging: I use the information on food packaging ........................................................................... 59 Food and packaging: use the information on food packaging ............................................................................. 60 Food and packaging: don’t care that much how my food is produced................................................................. 60 Agreement with statements about additional information and current level of information ..................... 61 Agreement with statements about food and packaging – by awareness of how farm animals are kept and reared .......................................................................................................................................... 62 Whether proposed poultry meat labelling system is clear............................................................................. 63


Figure 55. Figure 56. Figure 57. Figure 58. Figure 59. Figure 60. Figure 61. Figure 62. Figure 63. Figure 64. Figure 65. Figure 66. Figure 67. Figure 68. Figure 69. Figure 70. Figure 71. Figure 72. Figure 73. Figure 74.

Why the proposed poultry meat labelling system is clear ............................................................................. 65 Why the proposed poultry meat labelling system is unclear ......................................................................... 66 Likelihood of using poultry meat labelling system ........................................................................................... 67 Likelihood of using poultry meat labelling system – by awareness of egg labelling system ......................... 68 Likelihood of using poultry meat labelling system – by ease of identifying products sourced from animal welfare friendly production systems .......................................................................................... 69 Likelihood of using poultry meat labelling system – by whether would like to see the system introduced.......................................................................................................................................................... 70 Whether would like to see poultry meat labelling system introduced ......................................................... 71 Whether would like to see poultry meat labelling system introduced – by awareness of how farm animals are kept and reared............................................................................................................ 72 Whether would like to see poultry meat labelling system introduced – by importance of animals welfare when purchasing meat and dairy products........................................................................... 72 Whether would like to see poultry meat labelling system introduced – by attitudes to extending method of production labelling generally ...................................................................................... 73 Whether would like to see poultry meat labelling system introduced – by attitudes towards the clarity of the scale....................................................................................................................................... 73 Type of poultry meat likely to purchase under the proposed scheme ......................................................... 74 Preferred location on packaging for proposed poultry meat labelling scheme ............................................ 75 UK Profile: Region, age and gender.................................................................................................................. 78 Czech Republic Profile: Region, age and gender ............................................................................................. 79 France Profile: Region, age and gender ............................................................................................................ 80 Profile: Working status...................................................................................................................................... 81 UK and France Profile: Personal annual income.............................................................................................. 81 Czech Republic: Personal annual income......................................................................................................... 82 Profile: Marital status and presence of children .............................................................................................. 82


1.

Executive Summary

The broad findings from this research are as follows; •

Based on packaging alone, there is genuine confusion amongst many consumers regarding the method of production used to produce meat and dairy foods, with respondents unable to consistently say how the animals used to make the five example products tested in the research had been reared. This was even the case amongst those who felt that they could ‘easily identify from the label those products sourced from animal welfare friendly production systems’ either ‘most of the time’ or ‘some of the time’. These findings suggest that there is a need for increased clarity regarding method production on meat and dairy products.

•

Animal welfare is an important influence on which food products they purchase amongst the majority of respondents in each country.

•

Findings suggest that many consumers (particularly in France) see standards of animal welfare as a barometer for other important issues such as food quality, the health benefits and levels of nutrition.

•

There is evidence to suggest that awareness of the EU egg labelling system is comparatively good, with the majority of respondents in the Czech Republic and France and almost half of those in the UK indicating that they were aware of it.

•

In the UK and France, the majority aware of the egg labelling system do use it and many who claim that they don’t use it may actually do so without realising that they are.

•

More than four-fifths in each country said that they would like to see like the egg labelling system extended to ‘all meat and dairy products’ and clear evidence of an increased likelihood to purchase food with high standards of animal welfare if consumers could easily identify it from the packaging and labelling. Backing of the system by on-farm assurance schemes was also desired by the majority in each country.

•

The majority in each country agreed that they would like to see the proposed system of labelling poultry meat products introduced and respondents generally felt that it was ‘clear’.

•

More than three-quarters in each country thought that if the proposed system of labelling poultry meat products was introduced they’d be ‘very likely’ or ‘quite likely’ to use it.

•

Respondents had a strong preference for the poultry meat labelling to be displayed ‘on the front of the packaging/clear and visible, so it’s easy to see’.


2.

Introduction

Research was required to explore attitudes towards method of production labelling amongst the populations of the UK, France and the Czech Republic. Specifically, the research was required to; • • • •

Evaluate attitudes towards animal welfare when purchasing food and the degree to which consumers take this into account when deciding what to buy Understand perceptions of current method of production labelling Explore understanding of, and attitudes towards, a proposed scheme for method of production labelling for poultry meat Determine the degree to which consumers would like to see the proposed poultry meat scheme introduced.

This report outlines findings from all three countries.

3.

Methodology

Interviewing was undertaken via a commercial access panel provider amongst a representative sample of residents in each country. To ensure the sample was representative, quotas were set on recruitment, based on region, age and gender. All UK surveys were completed between the 15 and 22 April 2013 and all France and Czech Republic surveys were completed between 2 and 14 May 2013. The survey was hosted by Qa Research with all data collected by Qa. The survey took around 15 minutes to complete and was delivered online with answer lists and key questions rotated and randomised, as appropriate, within the survey. A copy of the survey is appended. A total of 1,001 interviews were completed in each country and based on this sample size, using statistical rules, we can be 95% confident that our research findings have a potential variance of no more than plus or minus 3% from the figure shown. All surveys were quality checked on completion and open questions were then coded into similar themes for analysis and data tables produced. Corrective weighting was also applied to ensure the final, reported sample was representative of the adult population in each country. The research was conducted to the guidelines set out by the international market research standard ISO:20252.


4.

Key findings

4.1

Existing Food Labels

Respondents were shown pictures of packaging from five different meat and dairy products from countries within the EU and were then asked a series of questions about those products and their packaging. The five products shown to respondents were as follows;

German - Pork

French - Chicken

Czech Republic – Ham

UK - Sausages

German - Yoghurt


4.1.1

Perceptions of how the animals were kept

Firstly, for each product in turn, respondents were asked to say where they thought the animals used to make that product had been kept while being reared. The following charts detail responses for each product amongst respondents in each country. It’s notable that a range of answers were given at this question for a number of these products, indicating that, generally, respondents were not sure what method of production was used. The exception to this was for the ‘German – Yoghurt’, as outlined below; Figure 1.

Perceptions of where animals kept – German - Yoghurt QB1. Where do you think the animals used to produce this food were kept? - German - Yoghurt -

56% 22%

UK

7% 16% 57%

Czech Republic

32% 4% 7% 56%

France

24% 7% 13%

Outside

A mixture of inside and outside

Inside

Don't know

Source: Qa Research 2013 Base: All respondents (UK: 1,001, France: 1,001, Czech Republic: 1,001)

In each country, the majority of respondents thought that this product was made with milk from animals reared ‘outside’ (UK: 56%, Czech Republic: 57%, France: 56%). However, this was not a view held overwhelmingly by respondents and amongst those in the UK and France, just over a fifth thought that ‘a mixture of inside and outside’ would have been used (UK: 22%, France: 24%) and this proportion was significantly higher amongst respondents in the Czech Republic (Czech Republic: 32%). In each country, less than one-in-ten felt that the animals would have been reared ‘inside’ (UK: 7%, Czech Republic: 4%, France: 7%). It should be noted that more than one-in-ten respondents in the UK and France and one-intwenty in the Czech Republic simply said that they ‘don’t know’ when asked about this product, (UK: 16%, Czech Republic: 7%, France: 13%). In all three countries, this was a lower proportion of respondents answering ‘don’t know’ than for any of the other products shown at this question.


Reponses for the ‘Czech Republic – Ham’ are shown below; Figure 2.

Perceptions of where animals kept – Czech Republic - Ham QB1. Where do you think the animals used to produce this food were kept? - Czech Republic - Ham -

14% 14%

UK

37% 35% 11% 27%

Czech Republic

47% 14% 11% 13%

France

51% 25%

Outside


Inside

Don't know


When asked about the ‘Czech Republic – Ham’, respondents were significantly more likely to say that they thought the animals used to produce this product were reared ‘inside’ than to say ‘a mixture of inside and outside’ or ‘outside’ and this was true in the UK (37%, 14% and 14% respectively), the Czech Republic (47%, 27% and 11% respectively) and France (51%, 13% and 11% respectively). Notably, Czech respondents were significantly more likely than those in the other countries to say that they thought ‘a mixture of inside and outside’ had been used (UK: 14%, Czech Republic: 27%, France: 13%). However, they were significantly less likely to say that they ‘don’t know’ (UK: 35%, Czech Republic: 14%, France: 25%). On the face of it, this might suggest that respondents in the Czech Republic may have been more comfortable interpreting the packaging of a product from their own country than respondents from the other countries, but generally across all five products asked about at this question, respondents from the Czech Republic were simply more inclined to given an answer and less inclined to say ‘don’t know’ than those in the UK and France.


Generally, perceptions of the other three products were more polarised, and responses for the ‘UK – Sausages’ are shown below; Figure 3.

Perceptions of where animals kept – UK - Sausages QB1. Where do you think the animals used to produce this food were kept? - UK - Sausages -

29% 32%

UK

15% 24% 28% 45%

Czech Republic

15% 12% 26% 27%

France

23% 23% Outside


Inside

Don't know

Source: Qa Research 2013 Base: All respondents (UK: 1,001)

This product generated differences of opinion amongst respondents in the different countries. Respondents in the UK, were significantly more likely to say that they thought the animals had been reared ‘outside’ (29%) rather than ‘inside’ (15%), although the highest proportion felt that ‘a mixture of inside and outside’ (32%) was likely to have been used and a quarter said that they ‘don’t know’ (24%). Amongst respondents in the Czech Republic a similar picture was recorded and they were also significantly more likely to say that they thought the animals had been reared ‘outside’ (28%) rather than ‘inside’ (15%), but well over two-fifths felt that the animals had been reared using ‘a mixture of inside and outside’ (45%), significantly higher than amongst respondents in either of the other countries. Views were much less clear-cut amongst respondents in France and almost equal proportions felt that the animals used had been reared ‘outside’ (26%), ‘inside’ (23%) or using ‘a mixture of inside and outside’ (27%). In addition, virtually the same proportion said that they ‘don’t know’ (23%). It is clear from these findings that French respondents struggled to determine the origin of this product with any degree of certainty or consistency. However, this does mean that when interpreting the packaging for the ‘UK – Sausages’ respondents in France were significantly more likely than those in other countries to believe that the animals used had been reared ‘inside’ (UK: 15%, Czech Republic: 15%, France: 23%).


The chart below shows response for the ‘French – Chicken’; Figure 4.

Perceptions of where animals kept – French - Chicken QB1. Where do you think the animals used to produce this food were kept? - French - Chicken -

29% 27%

UK

18% 26% 31% 32%

Czech Republic

22% 14% 41% 33%

France

15% 11%

Outside


Inside

Don't know


For this product, UK respondents mentioned ‘outside’ (29%) more frequently than ‘inside’ (18%), although a quarter said ‘a mixture of inside and outside’ (27%) and a further quarter said that they ‘don’t know’ (26%). Respondents in the Czech Republic were significantly more likely to believe that the animals had been reared ‘outside’ (31%) rather than ‘inside’ (22%), while almost a third felt that ‘a mixture of inside and outside’ (32%) had been used. Respondents in France were most likely to believe that the animals used to make the ‘French – Chicken’ had been reared ‘outside’ (41%) or ‘a mixture of inside and outside’ (33%), but comparatively few felt that they would have been reared ‘inside’ (15%); this was also the country in which respondents were least likely to say that they ‘don’t know’ (11%). In fact, French respondents were significantly more likely than those in the other countries to believe that the animals used for the ‘French – Chicken’ had been reared ‘outside’ (UK: 29%, Czech Republic: 31%, France: 41%).


Finally, the widest range of views was recorded for the ‘German – Pork’ and these are outlined below; Figure 5.

Perceptions of where animals kept – German - Pork QB1. Where do you think the animals used to produce this food were kept? - German - Pork -

28% 27%

UK

23% 22% 18% 36%

Czech Republic

35% 11% 28% 24%

France

30% 18%

Outside


Inside

Don't know


In the UK, while respondents were significantly more likely to feel that the animals used to produce this product would have been reared ‘outside’ (28%) rather than ‘inside’ (23%) the difference here was only 5 percentage points, smaller than for the ‘French – Chicken’ and the ‘UK – Sausages’. In addition, just over a quarter felt that ‘a mixture of inside and outside’ (27%) would have been used and just under a quarter said that they ‘don’t know’ (22%). In contrast, respondents in the Czech Republic actually felt that the ‘German – Pork’ was most likely to be made with animals reared either ‘inside’ (35%) or through ‘a mixture of inside and outside’ (36%) and responses for these two answers were significantly higher than they were in the other two countries. In line with this, these respondents were the least likely to feel that the animals would have been reared ‘outside’ (18%). Finally, respondents in France were less sure about this product and virtually equal proportions said ‘outside’ (28%) and ‘inside’ (30%), while a further quarter said ‘a mixture of inside and outside’ (24%) and almost one-in-five said that they simply ‘don’t know’ (18%). Clearly, it’s evident that a considerable degree of ambiguity exists for the ‘German – Pork’ in particular, as respondents in different countries had different views on the origin of the animals used to create it and this was perhaps the most confusing product and packaging for respondents to interpret.


Additional Analysis Differences for each product were recorded between respondents based on how aware they felt they generally were about how farm animals are kept and reared, as shown below; Figure 6.

Perceptions of where animals kept – by knowledge of farming methods How aware respondents feel they are about how farm animals are kept and reared

QB1. Where do you think

UK

France

Czech Republic

the animals used to produce this food were kept?

NET: Know little or

NET: Reasonable/Good

NET: Know little or


NET: Know little or


nothing/Know a bit

knowledge

nothing/Know a bit

knowledge

nothing/Know a bit

knowledge

%

%

%

%

%

%

Czech Republic - Ham Inside

27%

43%

42%

49%

45%

55%

Outside

17%

13%

12%

11%

11%

11%


12%

15%

26%

28%

12%

13%

Don't know

44%

30%

20%

12%

32%

21%

German - Pork Inside

16%

27%

33%

36%

27%

32%

Outside

32%

26%

21%

17%

30%

26%


24%

29%

34%

37%

23%

25%

Don't know

28%

19%

12%

10%

20%

16%

UK-Sausages Inside

13%

16%

15%

15%

22%

24%

Outside

32%

26%

32%

27%

26%

27%


25%

36%

38%

47%

25%

28%

Don't know

30%

22%

15%

11%

26%

21%

French - Chicken Inside

14%

21%

18%

24%

10%

17%

Outside

28%

30%

33%

30%

43%

41%


24%

28%

32%

33%

32%

33%

Don't know

34%

21%

17%

13%

15%

9%

German - Yoghurt Inside Outside

5%

8%

5%

4%

6%

7%

60%

53%

55%

58%

57%

56%


14%

26%

31%

32%

21%

26%

Don't know

21%

13%

10%

5%

16%

11%

334

659

247

739

348

639

Base:

NB: Grey boxes indicate a figure significantly higher than the opposing column for that country.

As shown above, UK respondents who felt that they ‘know little or nothing’ and those who ‘know a bit’ were more likely to say they ‘don’t know’ how the animals used to produce each of these five products were kept than those who felt they had ‘a reasonable, basic knowledge’ or ‘a good knowledge’. For example, this was true for the ‘French – Chicken’ (34% and 21% respectively) and also the ‘Czech Republic – Ham’ (44% and 30% respectively). What’s perhaps less expected is that responses from those who felt they had ‘a reasonable, basic knowledge’ or ‘a good knowledge’ varied for each product, suggesting that many of these respondents struggled to identify the method of production used from the picture of the packaging shown in the survey. For example, around a quarter of UK respondents who felt they had ‘a good knowledge’ or ‘a reasonable, basic knowledge’ said that they ‘don’t know’ for the ‘Czech Republic – Ham’ (30%), the ‘UK - Sausages’ (22%) and the ‘French - Chicken’ (21%). In contrast, amongst Czech respondents few differences were recorded between these two groups. The exception to this was for the ‘Czech Republic – Ham’, with those who felt they had ‘a reasonable, basic knowledge’ or ‘a good knowledge’ more likely than those who said that they ‘know little or nothing’ or ‘know a bit about the areas that concern me but no more’ to believe that the animals used to make that product were reared ‘indoors’ (49% and 42% respectively) but less likely to say that they ‘don’t know’ (12% and 20% respectively).


It was also the case amongst French respondents that few differences were recorded between those with a ‘reasonable’ or ‘good’ knowledge compared to others who felt that they had weaker knowledge, although they did have different opinions about the ‘Czech Republic – Ham’, where they generally felt that this was a product made from animals reared ‘indoors’ (55% and 45% respectively) and also the ‘French - Chicken’, where they were less likely to say that they ‘don’t know’ (9% and 15% respectively). All these findings suggest that having, or perceiving to have, a good level of knowledge of modern farming practices does not automatically mean that a consumer can interpret the exact nature of what they are buying from the food packaging. Of course, this assumes that the five examples used in the survey are suitably indicative of the types of packing available on the shelves. Later in the survey respondents were asked if they felt that when purchasing eggs, meat or milk they could ‘easily identify from the label products sourced from animal welfare friendly production systems’ and views on the five EU country products, amongst those who said that they generally could and those that felt that this wasn’t possible, are shown below; Figure 7.

Perceptions of where animals kept – by attitudes to current food labels Whether, when purchasing eggs, meat or milk, can you easily identify from the label

QB1. Where do you think

those products sourced from animal welfare friendly production systems

the animals used to produce UK

this food were kept?

Czech Republic

France

NET: Yes

NET: No

NET: Yes

NET: No

NET: Yes

NET: No

%

%

%

%

%

% 53%

Czech Republic - Ham Inside

43%

32%

45%

49%

51%

Outside

14%

15%

12%

10%

13%

9%


13%

14%

30%

26%

14%

11%

Don't know

30%

38%

12%

15%

22%

27%

German - Pork Inside

26%

21%

33%

36%

27%

34%

Outside

27%

31%

21%

18%

31%

25%


28%

26%

37%

36%

26%

23%

Don't know

19%

22%

9%

10%

17%

17%

UK - Sausages Inside

14%

18%

13%

17%

22%

25%

Outside

30%

26%

27%

29%

28%

25%


36%

27%

51%

42%

30%

25%

Don't know

21%

29%

10%

12%

19%

25%

French - Chicken Inside

20%

16%

19%

25%

13%

17%

Outside

30%

29%

34%

30%

45%

38%


27%

26%

35%

31%

34%

33%

Don't know

22%

28%

12%

14%

8%

12%

German - Yoghurt Inside Outside

9%

6%

4%

4%

7%

7%

55%

57%

61%

56%

59%

55%


24%

20%

30%

33%

24%

25%

Don't know

13%

17%

5%

7%

10%

14%

Base:

609

322

349

591

508

456

NB: Grey boxes indicate a figure significantly higher than the opposing column for that country.


As the previous table shows, when asked to consider what methods were used to produce the animals used for the five EU country products tested in the research, some differences were recorded between those who felt that they generally could identify the method of production from food labelling and those that couldn’t. For example, in the UK, these respondents were significantly more likely to feel that the ‘Czech Republic – Ham’ was from animals reared ‘inside’ (43% and 32% respectively) and in France they were more likely to believe that the ‘French – Chicken’ had been reared ‘outside’ (45% and 38% respectively). However, it’s perhaps more telling that those who felt that they could identify which method of production had been used for eggs, meat or milk products ‘most of the time’ or ‘some of the time’ actually gave a range of answers when asked to consider the five products tested and in most instances gave similar responses to those who said that they could do this ‘very rarely’ or ‘never’. This was generally true when respondents in each country were asked to assess the product from their own country, suggesting that this is not simply an issue of language.


4.1.2

Specific details of how the animals were kept

For each of the five products, respondents in each country were shown four pairs of words and asked to pick the one that they felt best described the life of the animals used to produce that particular food. The following chart shows results for the ‘German – Yoghurt’; Figure 8.

Descriptors for how animals were kept – German - Yoghurt

QB2: Please pick the word or phrase that you

Country surveyed

think best describes the life of the animal used to produce this food?

UK

Czech Republic

France

German- Yoghurt

%

%

% 12%

Metal bars and slatted floor

11%

7%

Fields and hedges

70%

85%

73%

Don't know

19%

8%

16%

Soft straw bedding

55%

80%

68%

Hard concrete floor

16%

8%

10%

Don't know

29%

13%

22%

Cramped in a crowd

11%

8%

12%

Space to express natural behaviour

69%

82%

71%

Don't know

20%

10%

16%

Factory farming

14%

20%

16%

Rural calm

65%

71%

69%

Don't know

21%

9%

15%

1,001

1,001

1,001

Base:

NB: Grey boxes indicate a figure significantly higher than the other two columns.

The previous question highlighted that the ‘German – Yoghurt’ was the one product that the majority of respondents in each country felt was made using animals that had been kept ‘outside’, so it is perhaps no surprise that the descriptors chosen here reflected this. In fact, this was the product consistently viewed by respondents when answering these questions as offering the highest levels of animal welfare, based on the choices respondents made to the paired statements. In all three countries, the majority of respondents chose ‘fields and hedges’ (UK: 70%, Czech Republic: 85%, France: 73%) rather than ‘metal bars and slatted floor’. Additionally, the majority chose ‘soft straw bedding’ (UK: 55%, Czech Republic: 80%, France: 68%) and ‘space to express natural behaviour’ (UK: 69%, Czech Republic: 82%, France: 71%) as well as ‘rural calm’ (UK: 65%, Czech Republic: 71%, France: 69%). Generally, respondents in the Czech Republic were significantly more likely to choose each of these options than those in the other countries. The exception to this was ‘rural calm’ and in fact one-in-five respondents from the Czech Republic chose ‘factory farming’ rather than ‘rural calm’ (20% and 71% respectively), a significantly higher proportion than for the other countries. It was also the case that Czech respondents were significantly less likely to say ‘don’t know’ when asked to choose from each pair than respondents in other countries, suggesting that they were generally more sure about what they were viewing, regardless of whether they were able to correctly identify the way animals were kept for this product or not.


Reponses for the ‘Czech Republic – Ham’ are shown below; Figure 9.

Descriptors for how animals were kept – Czech Republic - Ham

QB2: Please pick the word or phrase that you

Country surveyed


UK

Czech Republic

France

Czech - Ham

%

%

%


43%

56%

57%

Fields and hedges

21%

26%

15%

Don't know

36%

18%

27%

Soft straw bedding

21%

42%

23%

Hard concrete floor

41%

37%

49%

Don't know

38%

20%

28%

Cramped in a crowd

44%

46%

60%


21%

36%

14%

Don't know

35%

19%

26%

Factory farming

47%

61%

63%

Rural calm

19%

23%

14%

Don't know

33%

17%

23%

1,001

1,001

1,001

Base:


As noted earlier, respondents were most likely to believe that the animals used to produce the ‘Czech Republic – Ham’ were reared ‘inside’ and in-line with this, this was the only product where respondents in all countries chose ‘metal bars and slatted floor’ (UK: 43%, Czech Republic: 56%, France: 57%) more frequently than ‘fields and hedges’ (UK: 21%, Czech Republic: 26%, France: 15%). Respondents were also more likely to choose ‘cramped in crowds’ (UK: 44%, Czech Republic: 46%, France: 60%) rather than ‘space to express natural behaviour’ (UK: 21%, Czech Republic: 36%, France: 14%) and ‘factory farming’ (UK: 47%, Czech Republic: 61%, France: 63%) rather than ‘rural calm’ (UK: 19%, Czech Republic: 23%, France: 14%). Opinion was more divided regarding ‘soft straw bedding’ and ‘hard concrete floor’ with respondents in the UK more likely to choose the latter (21% and 41% respectively), as was the case in France (23% and 49% respectively) but in contrast, those in the Czech Republic were almost equally likely to choose both (42% and 37% respectively). Generally, respondents in the Czech Republic gave responses to this question which suggested that they were more likely than those in the other countries to feel that the animals used to produce this product had been kept with better standards of animal welfare. In particular, they were significantly more likely to mention ‘fields and hedges’, ‘space to express natural behaviour’ and ‘soft straw bedding’. Amongst UK respondents, it should also be noted that the highest proportion of respondents mentioning ‘don’t know’ was recorded for this product, with more than a third feeling unable or unwilling to choose from the four pairs of phrases.


Responses for the ‘UK – Sausages’ are shown below; Figure 10. Descriptors for how animals were kept – UK - Sausages QB2: Please pick the word or phrase that you

Country surveyed


UK

Czech Republic

France

UK - Sausages

%

%

%


22%

23%

38%

Fields and hedges

55%

60%

36%

Don't know

23%

17%

26%

Soft straw bedding

57%

71%

52%

Hard concrete floor

18%

12%

24%

Don't know

25%

17%

24%

Cramped in a crowd

19%

19%

34%


56%

64%

38%

Don't know

24%

17%

28%

Factory farming

22%

21%

34%

Rural calm

55%

66%

45%

Don't know

23%

13%

21%

1,001

1,001

1,001

Base:


It was noted earlier that when asked to consider how the animals used to make the ‘UK Sausages’ were likely to have been kept, it was French respondents who were the least sure and offered the greatest range of answers and this uncertainty is reflected in responses here. Generally, UK and Czech respondents were most likely to believe that the animals had been kept either ‘outside’ or using ‘a mixture of inside and outside’ and in line with this they were more likely to choose ‘fields and hedges’ (UK: 55%, Czech Republic: 60%) rather than ‘metal bars and slatted floor’ (UK: 22%, Czech Republic: 23%). They were also more likely to choose ‘soft straw bedding’ (UK: 57%, Czech Republic: 71%) as well as ‘space to express natural behaviour’ (UK: 56%, Czech Republic: 64%) and ‘rural calm’ (UK: 55%, Czech Republic: 66%). In contrast, while French respondents were also more likely to choose ‘rural calm’ rather than ‘factory farming’ (45% and 34% respectively) and ‘soft straw bedding’ rather than ‘hard concrete floor’ (52% and 24% respectively), broadly equal proportions chose ‘fields and hedges’ and ‘metal bars and slatted floor’ (36% and 38% respectively) as well as ‘cramped in a crowd’ and ‘space to express natural behaviour’ (34% and 38% respectively). Finally, around a quarter of respondents in the UK and France said ‘don’t know’ when asked to pick between each pair of phrases for this product, clearly indicating a good degree of uncertainty in these countries.


Responses for the ‘French – Chicken’ are shown below; Figure 11. Descriptors for how animals were kept – French - Chicken QB2: Please pick the word or phrase that you

Country surveyed


UK

Czech Republic

France

French - Chicken

%

%

%


23%

29%

24%

Fields and hedges

47%

50%

61%

Don't know

30%

21%

15%

Soft straw bedding

45%

58%

58%

Hard concrete floor

22%

19%

20%

Don't know

34%

23%

21%

Cramped in a crowd

26%

27%

26%


45%

54%

59%

Don't know

29%

19%

15%

Factory farming

27%

34%

32%

Rural calm

44%

47%

54%

Don't know

29%

19%

13%

1,001

1,001

1,001

Base:


For the ‘French – Chicken’, respondents in each country answered fairly consistently, choosing one option more than the other. In all three countries they were more likely to choose ‘fields and hedges’ (UK: 47%, Czech Republic: 50%, France: 61%) rather than ‘metal bars and slatted floor’ (UK: 23%, Czech Republic: 29%, France: 24%). In addition, respondents were most likely to choose ‘soft straw bedding’ (UK: 45%, Czech Republic: 58%, France: 58%) as well as ‘space to express natural behaviour’ (UK: 45%, Czech Republic: 54%, France: 59%) and ‘rural calm’ (UK: 44%, Czech Republic: 47%, France: 54%). Generally, responses to these paired statement reflect the fact that it was respondents in France who were most likely to believe that the animals used for this product would have been kept ‘outside’, as they were significantly more likely than those in the other countries to choose ‘fields and hedges’, ‘rural calm’ and ‘space to express natural behaviour’. Similarly, it was UK respondents who were the most likely to say ‘don’t know’ for this product when asked how the animals used to make it would have been kept and they were also the most likely to say ‘don’t know’ when asked to choose from these pairs of descriptors, further emphasising that they were the most likely to struggle to form an opinion about this product.


Finally, responses for the ‘German – Pork’ are shown below; Figure 12. Descriptors for how animals were kept – German - Pork QB2: Please pick the word or phrase that you

Country surveyed


UK

Czech Republic

France

German - Pork

%

%

%


32%

47%

40%

Fields and hedges

43%

38%

40%

Don't know

26%

15%

20%

Soft straw bedding

39%

54%

42%

Hard concrete floor

30%

29%

34%

Don't know

31%

17%

25%

Cramped in a crowd

31%

36%

40%


43%

51%

39%

Don't know

26%

13%

21%

Factory farming

35%

45%

44%

Rural calm

39%

41%

37%

Don't know

26%

14%

19%

1,001

1,001

1,001

Base:


As noted previously, this was perhaps the most difficult product for respondents to interpret and those in different countries tended to have different views as to whether the animals used were kept ‘inside’, ‘outside’ or in ‘a mixture of inside and outside’ and this is reflected in how they answered here with different responses in different countries. In line with earlier responses, around a quarter of respondents in the UK felt unable or unwilling to choose from these four pairs of phrases for this product and answered ‘don’t know’. They were significantly more likely to mention ‘space to express natural behaviour’ rather than ‘cramped in a crowd’ (43% and 31% respectively) and ‘soft straw bedding’ rather than ‘hard concrete floor’ (39% and 30% respectively) as well as ‘fields and hedges’ rather than ‘metal bars and slatted floor’ (43% and 32% respectively). These responses reflect the fact that amongst UK respondents, ‘outside’ was chosen more often than ‘inside’ when asked how the animals used to make it were reared. Czech respondents were more likely to believe that the animals used for this product were kept ‘inside’ or in ‘a mixture of inside and outside’ rather than ‘inside’. Interestingly, responses to this question suggest that they also believed that, despite being reared indoors, the animals were reared with comparatively high standards of animal welfare, being more likely to choose ‘soft straw bedding’ rather than ‘hard concrete floor’ (54% and 29% respectively) and ‘space to express natural behaviour’ rather than ‘cramped in a crowd’ (51% and 36% respectively). They were also more likely to choose ‘metal bars and slatted floors’ rather than ‘fields and hedges’ (47% and 38% respectively). French respondents gave polarised responses for this product, reflecting the fact that no single method was mentioned more than the others as being used to keep the animals that were used to make it. For instance, equal, or almost equal, proportions said ‘metal bars and slatted floors’ rather than ‘fields and hedges’ (40% and 40% respectively) and ‘space to express natural behaviour’ rather than ‘cramped in a crowd’ (39% and 40% respectively).


Additional Analysis UK respondents who said, when asked later in the survey, that they could ‘easily identify from the label those products sourced from animal welfare friendly production systems’ either ‘most of the time’ or ‘some of the time’ expressed few differences in the way they answered when compared to those who said they could identify these products either ‘very rarely’ or ‘never’. This suggests that both groups struggled to say decisively how the animals that were used to make these products had been reared. One exception to this was for the ‘Czech Republic – Ham’, which was the product that seemed to provoke the most decisive responses from respondents generally. For this product, those that felt they could ‘easily identify’ from the label that products sourced from animal welfare friendly production systems ‘most of the time’ or ‘some of the time’ were significantly more likely to choose descriptors that related to lower standards of animal welfare. This included ‘metal bars and slatted floor’ (49% and 38% respectively), ‘hard concrete floor’ (47% and 36% respectively) and ‘factory farming’ (54% and 41% respectively). A slightly different situation was evident amongst French and Czech respondents however, with respondents that felt they could ‘easily identify’ these products ‘most of the time’ or ‘some of the time’ generally more likely than those who said this was possible either ‘very rarely’ or ‘never’ to choose options for the products that suggested higher standards of animal welfare. For example, in France for the ‘German – Pork’ they were more likely to choose ‘space to express natural behaviour’ (43% and 34% respectively), for the ‘UK – Sausages’ they were more likely to choose ‘rural calm’ (49% and 42% respectively) and for the ‘German – Yoghurt’ they were more likely to choose ‘fields and hedges’ (78% and 69% respectively). Similarly, amongst Czech respondents, the same sub-group was more likely to choose ‘rural calm’ for the ‘French – Chicken’ (53% and 45% respectively) as well as ‘fields and hedges’ for the ‘UK – Sausages’ (66% and 59% respectively) and ‘rural calm’ for the ‘Czech Republic – Ham’ (28% and 20% respectively). This does not mean that they always chose the option relating to the higher standard of animal welfare, just that they were more inclined to do so. In fact, as was the case amongst UK respondents, a range of answers were given for each product by those who said they could ‘easily identify’ these products and those that didn’t, again suggesting that respondents generally struggled to say with any consistency or certainty how the animals used to make these products were produced These findings suggest that respondents in these two countries who felt they could ‘easily identify’ products sourced from animal welfare friendly production systems might be more inclined to take packaging at face value than those who said that this was possible either ‘very rarely’ or ‘never’, although the results are not conclusive in this respect.


4.2

Eating and Shopping Behaviour

4.2.1

Purchasing behaviour for eggs, meat or milk

In this section of the survey, respondents were asked a series of questions about certain foods to understand their purchasing behaviour. They were asked to think only about foods they might buy from a supermarket or shop, rather than foods bought at a restaurant or take-away. The chart below shows the level of purchasing eggs, meat or milk amongst respondents; Figure 13. Purchasing levels for eggs, meat and milk QA1. Which of the following do you ever buy?

98% 99% 100%

Net - Any

96% 97% 97%

Dairy products (such as yoghurt, cheese or butter)

92% Eggs

81% 94% 91% 94% 94%

Meat (such as chicken, pork, beef, lamb or pet food) 82% Fish and seafood (of any type)

71% 86%

None of the above

2%