Summary of animal welfare framing effects
- Most European consumers want clearer animal welfare information when buying meat
- Retailers use digital information tools because packaging space remains highly limited
- Additional animal husbandry details can significantly increase consumer purchase intentions
- Absolute welfare data often contradicts expectations and reduces consumer willingness
- Relative welfare improvements feel reassuring while absolute figures emphasise unwanted conditions
European consumers want to know more about animal welfare in connection to their food. They are keen to know how animals were reared, how long they lived, and what conditions they were kept in. Consumer perception of such welfare is a key influence on meat purchases.
For example, according to the European consumer organisation BEUC, three in four consumers wanted information on meat and dairy’s method of production on-pack for all animal products, not just eggs, as of 2024.
Often, space on packaging is limited, meaning that some supermarket retailers, such as Carrefour, have used blockchain technology to provide consumers with information.
While consumers want to be reassured that the animal production process is transparent, in some cases this transparency can go too far. It is possible for animal welfare information to be framed in a way that can even put them off the idea of eating the meat in the first place.
Transparency on animal welfare can drive purchases, but it depends on framing
Providing additional information to complement animal welfare labels can have a positive impact on purchase intentions.
For example, consumers provided with information on animal husbandry have been shown to be more likely to purchase a product than those who aren’t.
Providing images, videos and even virtual reality can aid understanding of animal welfare and by extension increase consumer willingness to buy.
However, framing matters to consumers and can influence consumer behaviour. Animal welfare can be framed relative terms – highlighting the improvements made in comparison to conventional production – or in absolute terms – providing the raw figures rather than just the degree of improvement.
One study examined this contrast, looking at how consumers reacted to the information that poultry was reared for “at least twice as long as in conventional breeding” (relative) compared to their reaction that it was reared “at least 81 days compared to 40 days in conventional breeding” (absolute).
This result was replicated when participants were provided with information about how close together animals were kept, contrasting “half as many animals per square metre” with “10 animals per square metre compared with 20 animals per square metre in conventional farming”.
Expectation and reality
The study suggests that adverse consumer reaction to the ‘absolute’ framing of animal welfare information may take place because it clashes with their expectations.
For example, the phrase ‘a long and happy life’ is dissonant for many consumers with even the idea of chickens reared for 81 days instead of the 40 of conventional production.
Rather than highlighting the positives of animal welfare – the gap between conventional meat production and organic farming – information framed in ‘absolute’ terms tends to instead focus consumers on conditions they may not have previously been aware of.
The fact that they are simultaneously made aware that these conditions are good in comparison to conventional production will not always help.
In short, while in the past, studies indicated that consumer purchasing intention was improved through further information, this is not always the case. It depends on the information itself.