Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Consuming for the Sake of Others: Whose Interests Count on a Market for Animal-Friendly Products?

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many Europeans are concerned about the living conditions of farm animals because they view animals as beings that possess interests of their own. Against this background the introduction of an animal welfare label is being intensively discussed in Europe. In choosing a market-based instrument to take these concerns into account, normative judgments are made about the formation of preferences, the value system that is implicitly assumed, and the distribution of property rights. From the perspective of classical institutional economics it can be shown that the introduction of a label as an institutional change does not redefine institutions in a way that allows them to consider the interests of animals for their own sake. Rather, the label only redefines the property rights that humans have over animals. The market segregation into privileged and normal animals conflicts with the idea of equality between sentient animals. Within the group of humans only the interests of those who act on markets count. The commodification of their moral concerns assumes that people always decide based on their own interests, which can be traded off. The lexicographical ordering of preferences, which occurs when humans view animals as entities with rights, is not compatible with the normative assumptions of markets. Furthermore, interpreting animal suffering as market failure that can be corrected by labeling impedes a reasoned dialog within the society about the values and beliefs that serve as a basis for preference formation. Thus, an animal welfare label cannot replace a fundamental societal debate about legal standards on animal well-being.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The answers to these questions are far from being clear and unambiguous. However, the topic of this paper—an analysis of the market for animal welfare—requires an affirmative answer to these questions.

References

  • Agrar-Europe. (2015). Tierschutzbund sieht reichlich Handlungsbedarf. No. 4/15. In: Länderberichte 16.

  • Agrarheute. (2013). Neues Tierschutzlabel: Viel Kritik und wenig Zustimmung. http://www.agrarheute.com/reaktionen-tierschutzlabel.

  • Aizerman, M. A., & Alerskerov, F. T. (1995). Theory of choice. Amsterdam: Northern Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. (1993). Values in ethics and economics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1951). The social choice and the individual value. New York: Wisley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. (1976). The economics approach to human behaviour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beekman, V., & Brom, F. W. A. (2007). Ethical tools to support systematic public deliberation about the ethical aspect of agricultural biotechnologies. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s10806-006-9024-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. (1995). The value of farm animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural Economics,. doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.1995.tb00751.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergstra, T. J., Gremmen, B., & Stassen, E. N. (2015). Moral values and attitudes toward dutch sow husbandry. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9539-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, B. B., & van Huik, M. M. (2007). Animal Welfare: The attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. British Food Journal,. doi:10.1108/00070700710835732.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, S. (1998). Endogenous preferences: The cultural consequences of markets and other economic institutions. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(1), 75–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, D. W. (1989a). Entitlements missing markets and environmental uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,. doi:10.1016/0095-0696(89)90031-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, D. W. (1989b). Institutional change and economic efficiency. Journal of Economic Issues, 23(3), 735–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, D. W. (2004). Reconsidering environmental policy: Prescriptive consequentialism and volitional pragmatism. Environmental & Resource Economics, 28(1), 73–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, D. W. (2006). Sufficient reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buller, H., & Roe, E. (2012). Commodifying animal welfare. Animal Welfare,. doi:10.7120/096272812X13345905674042.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buller, H., & Roe, E. (2014). Modifying and commodifying farm animal welfare: The economisation of layer chickens. Journal of Rural Studies,. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.01.005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, D., Hutchinson, G., McCallion, I., & Scarpa, R. (2003). Investigating choice rationality in stated preference methods for enhanced animal welfare. CSERGE Working Paper ECM 03-02. Norwich: University of East Anglia.

  • De Lauwere, C., & Luttik, J. (2004). Wageningen UR Projectteam Houden van Hennen. Laying hen husbandry: Towards a happy life, proud farmers and satisfied society. Wageningen: Wageningen UR.

  • Eckhardt, G., Belk, R., & Devinney, T. M. (2010). Why don’t consumers consume ethically? Journal of Consumer Behaviour,. doi:10.1002/cb.332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurobarometer. (2007a). Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals: Wave 2. In Special Eurobaromenter Report 229(2). Brussels: Eurobaromenter.

  • Eurobarometer. (2007b). Attitude of EU Citizens towards animal welfare. In Special Eurobarometer Report 270. Brussels: Eurobarometer.

  • European Commission. (1998). Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. Brussels.

  • Evans, A., & Miele, M. (2007) (Eds). Consumers’ views about farm animal welfare, part I: National reports based on focus group research. In Welfare Quality ® Reports no. 4. Cardiff: Cardiff University.

  • Francione, G. L. (2008). Animals as persons: Essays on the abolition of animal exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franz, A., Deimel, I., & Spiller, A. (2012). Concerns about animal welfare: A cluster analysis of German pig farmers. British Food Journal,. doi:10.1108/00070701211263019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1988). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (Vol. 1). Surkamp: Frankfurt a.M.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D., & Hubbard, C. (2013). Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare. An anatomy of market failure. Food Policy,. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.11.006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heerwagen, L. R., Christensen, T., & Sandøe, P. (2013). The prospect of market-driven improvements in animal welfare: Lessons from the case of grass milk in Denmark. Animals,. doi:10.3390/ani3020499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice and loyality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, A. (2002). Are choices tradeoffs? In D. W. Bromley & J. Paavola (Eds.), Economics, ethics and environmental policy. Contested choices (pp. 17–34). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, E., & Dulsrud, A. (2007). Will consumers save the world? Framing of political consumerism. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s10806-007-9043-z.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobs, M. (1997). Environmental valuation, deliberative democracy and public decision-making institutions. In J. Foster (Ed.), Valuing nature: Economics, ethics and environment (pp. 211–231). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kehlbacher, A., Bennett, R., & Balcombe, K. (2012). Measuring the consumer benefit of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling. Food Policy,. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kjaernes, U., Roe U., & Bock B. (2007). Societal concerns on farm animal welfare. In: I. Veissier, B. Forkman, & B. Jones (Eds.), Assuring animal welfare: From societal concerns to implementation, Proceedings of the second welfare quality stakeholder conference (pp. 13–18), 3–4 May 2007, Berlin.

  • Kupper, F., & De Cock Buning, T. (2011). Deliberating animal values: A pragmatic—pluralistic approach to animal ethics. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s10806-010-9260-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagerkvist, C. J., & Hess, S. (2011). A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. European Review of Agricultural Economics,. doi:10.1093/erae/jbq043.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, K. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassen, J., Sandøe, P., & Forkman, B. (2006). Happy pigs are dirty!–conflicting perspective on animal welfare. Livestock Science,. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liljenstolpe, C. (2008). Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: An application to Swedish pig production. Agribusiness,. doi:10.1002/agr.20147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, J. L. (2011). The market for animal welfare. Agricultural and Human Values,. doi:10.1007/s10460-011-9318-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miele, M., & Evans, A. (2012). When food becomes animals: Ruminations on ethics and responsibilities in care-full practiced consumption. Ethics, Place and Environment, 13(2), 171–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miele, M., & Lever, J. (2013). Civilizing the market for welfare friendly products in Europe? The techno-ethics of the welfare quality® assessment. Geoforum,. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.003.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, J. (2007). Markets, deliberation and environment. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirscher, F. (2013). Animal welfare labelling: Is the market the right governance structure to meet people’s moral concerns? In H. Röcklinsberg & P. Sandin (Eds.), The ethics of consumption: The citizen, the market and the law (pp. 120–125). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publisher.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Raz, J. (1997). Incommensurability and agency. In R. Chang (Ed.), Incommensurablity, incomparability and practical reason (pp. 110–128). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberger, R. S., Peterson, G. L., Clarke, A., & Brown, T. C. (2003). Measuring dispositions for lexicographic preferences of environmental goods: Integrating economics, psychology and ethics. Ecological Economics,. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00221-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagoff, M. (1994). Should preferences count? Land Economics, 70(2), 127–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A. (1953). Foundations of economic analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, A. A. (1972). Analytical institutional economics: Challenging problems in the economics of resources for a new environment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,. doi:10.2307/1239236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, A. A. (2002). All environmental policy instruments require a moral choice as to whose interests count. In D. W. Bromley & J. Paavola (Eds.), Economics, ethics and environmental policy. Contested choices (pp. 133–147). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schulze, B., Lemke, P., & Spiller, A. (2008). Glückschwein oder arme Sau? Die Einstellung der Verbraucher zur modernen Nutztierhaltung. In A. Spiller & B. Schulze (Eds.), Zukunftsperspektiven der Fleischwirtschaft: Verbraucher, Märkte, Geschäftsbeziehungen. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York: New York Review; Distributed by Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spash, C. L. (2008). How much is that ecosystem in the window? The one with the bio-diverse trail. Environmental Values, 17(2), 259–284. doi:10.3197/096327108X303882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vatn, A. (2000). The environment as a commodity. Environmental Values 9(4), 493–509. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30301777.

  • Vatn, A. (2005). Rationality, institutions and environmental policy. Ecological Economics,. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veissier, I., Jensen, K. K., Botreu, R., & Sandøe, P. (2011). Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal welfare in the Welfare Quality® scheme. Animal Welfare, 20, 89–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude–behavioural intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, U. (1990). Das Tier in der Moral. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zander, K., & Hamm, U. (2010). Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of organic food. Food Quality and Preferences,. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.01.006.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank an anonymous reviewer as well as Daniel W. Bromley for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, 06099, Halle (Saale), Germany

    Frauke Pirscher

Authors
  1. Frauke Pirscher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frauke Pirscher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pirscher, F. Consuming for the Sake of Others: Whose Interests Count on a Market for Animal-Friendly Products?. J Agric Environ Ethics 29, 67–80 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9592-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9592-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation