Consumer attitudes on welfare

A report on a recent study on consumer attitudes towards welfare, conducted by agricultural economists F. Bailey Norwood and Jayson Lusk at Oklahoma State University, was published in Farm Gate, a University of Illinois journal. Only 29% of the responders regarded "welfare" to be of low importance. Almost 70% maintained that “animals should not suffer” but that “happiness” is not a consideration with regard to food producing livestock.
A majority of consumers [58%] supported relevant legislation to prevent cruelty and a quarter of those questioned supported the principle of laws to ban housing systems opposed by the majority of citizens. There appears to be considerable support for voluntary labeling of food products with almost half of the respondents in favor of some visible indication of welfare standard and housing system.
The authors of the review analyzed the campaign mounted by United Egg Producers and proponents of confined housing for egg production in relation to the opposition raised by HSUS and kindred organizations. The conflict is entrenched in public perceptions of animal wellbeing and the definition of "welfare." The discrepancy between theory and practice allows organizations opposing intensive animal production to inject emotion into the debate and to distort facts and scientific knowledge to advance their cause. Read the full blog on AnimalAgNet.