Advertisement

Potential Implications of Animal Welfare Concerns and Public Policies in Industrialized Countries for International Trade

  • David Blandford
  • Jean-Christophe Bureau
  • Linda Fulponi
  • Spencer Henson

Abstract

The intensification of systems of agricultural production has generated increasing concern in some countries about the treatment of farm animals. Perhaps nowhere are these concerns more apparent than in Europe. Wide-ranging legislation governing the treatment of farm animals exists in many European countries and at the multinational level through the European Union (EU). Private initiatives on the development of standards for the production and marketing of food products have emerged in some countries in response to public concerns over animal welfare. The EU accounts for roughly 50 percent of the trade in live animals, meat, and livestock products by the members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).1 Private and public actions relating to animal welfare have potentially broad-reaching implications for agricultural practices in the countries concerned, and beyond their borders through effects on international competition and trade.

Keywords

European Union Animal Welfare World Trade Organization European Union Member State Consumer Concern 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Association of Consumer Research, 1998, Choosing the Meat You Eat,London.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, T., 1999, Quality Policy and Consumer Behaviour in the European Union, Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk Kiel, Kiel, Germany.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, T., Benner, E., and Glitsch, K., 1997, Wandel des Verbraucherverhaltens bei Fleisch, Agrarwirtschaft 45 (7): 267–277.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, R., 1998, Measuring public support for animal welfare legislation: A case study of cage egg production, Anim Welf 7 (1): 1 - I1.Google Scholar
  5. Blandford, D., and Fulponi, L., 1999, Emerging public concerns in agriculture: Domestic policies and international trade commitments, Eur Rev Agric Econ 26 (3): 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bord Bia, 1995, European Attitudes to Meat,Dublin.Google Scholar
  7. Broom, D. M., 1991, Animal welfare: Concepts and measurement, J Anim Sci 69: 4167–4175.Google Scholar
  8. Cowan, C., and Mannion, M., 1997, Consumer Perceptions of Meat Quality in Ireland, National Food Centre, Dublin.Google Scholar
  9. Duncan, I. J. H., and Fraser, D., 1997, Understanding animal welfare, in: Animal Welfare, M. Appleby and B. Hughes, eds., CAB International, Wallingford Oxon, UK.Google Scholar
  10. Farber, W., and Hudec, R., 1996, GATT legal restraints on domestic environmental regulations, in: Fair Trade and Harmonization: Prerequisites for Free Trade?, vol. 2, J. Bhagwati and R. Hudec, eds., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  11. Harper, G., and Henson, S. J., 1998, Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare and the Impact on Food Choice: Overview of the Literature in the UK, Ireland, Italy, France and Germany, Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, University of Reading, UK.Google Scholar
  12. Harper, G., and Henson, S. J., 1999a, Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare and the Impact on Food Choice: Report of UK Focus Groups, Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, University of Reading, UK.Google Scholar
  13. Harper, G., and Henson, S. J., 1999b; Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare and the Impact on Food Choice: Overview of Focus Groups in the UK, Ireland, Italy, France and Germany, Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, University of Reading, UK.Google Scholar
  14. Harper, G., and Henson, S. J., 2000a, Consumer Values and Concern about Animal Welfare, Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, University of Reading, UK.Google Scholar
  15. Harper, G., and Henson, S. J., 2000b, Consumer Values and Concern about Animal Welfare: Comparative Report, Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, University of Reading, UK.Google Scholar
  16. INRA-CORELA, 1998, Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare,Paris.Google Scholar
  17. Issanchou, S., 1996, Consumer Expectations and Perceptions of Meat, INRA, Dijon, France.Google Scholar
  18. Jolly, C., 1998, Réglementation et commerce international des produits agro-alimentaires, M.S. thesis, DEA Economie internationale, Institut d’Etudes Politiques, Paris.Google Scholar
  19. Leatherhead Food Research Association, 1999, FOMAD database, Leatherhead, UK.Google Scholar
  20. Meat and Livestock Commission, 1997, European Attitudes to Meat, Milton Keynes, UK.Google Scholar
  21. Meat and Livestock Commission, 1999, European Attitudes to Meat, Milton Keynes, UK.Google Scholar
  22. Mintel Market Intelligence, 1996, Red Meat,London.Google Scholar
  23. Noelle-Neumann, E., and Kocher, R., 1997, Allensbacher Jahrbuch der Deomoskopie 1993–1997, Allensbach am Bodensee, K. G. Saur, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Noltkaemper, A., 1996, The legality of moral crusades disguised in trade laws: An analysis of the EC “ban” on furs from animals taken by leghold traps, J Environ Law 8 (2): 237–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Perkins, N. L., 1998, Introductory note, Int Legal Materials 37(3), http://www.asil.org/ilm/PERKINS.htm (accessed May 31, 2001 ).Google Scholar
  26. Porin, F., 2000, The Welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production (Broilers), Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, Brussels.Google Scholar
  27. Richardson, N. J., Shepherd, R., and Elliman, N. A., 1993, Current attitudes and future influences on meat consumption in the UK, Appetite 21 (10): 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sandoe, P., Crisp, R., and Holtug, N., 1997, Ethics in animal welfare, in: Animal Welfare, M. Appleby and B. Hughes, eds., CAB International, Wallingford Oxon, UK.Google Scholar
  29. Schoenbaum, T. J., 1997, International trade and protection of the environment: The continuing search for reconciliation, Am J Int Law 268:271, quoted in: On Kith and Kine (and Crustaceans): Trade and Environment in the EU and WTO, J. Scott, Harvard Jean Monnet Working Paper 3/99, http:// www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/99/990301.htm1 (accessed May 31, 2001).
  30. Scott, J., 1999, On Kith and Kine (and Crustaceans): Trade and Environment in the EU and WTO, Harvard Jean Monnet Working Paper 3/99, http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/99/990301.html (accessed May 31, 2001 ).Google Scholar
  31. Schulz, F., 1997, Der Beitrag des Involvementkonstrukts zur Erlarung des Konsumentenverhaltens beim Kauf von Rind fleisch, Reihe V Volks und Betriebswirtschaft, Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  32. Tannenbaum, M., 1991, Ethics and animal welfare: The inextricable connection, J Am Vet Med Assoc 198: 1360–1376.Google Scholar
  33. Ziehlberg, R., and von Alvensleben, R., 1998, Die Bedeuteng Ethischer Motive beim Kauf von Lebensmitteln am Beispiel fair Gehandelten Kaffeess, in: Jahrbuch der Absatz-und Verbrauchsforschung, Jahrgana, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Blandford
    • 1
  • Jean-Christophe Bureau
    • 2
  • Linda Fulponi
    • 3
  • Spencer Henson
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural SociologyPennsylvania State UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Institut National AgronomiqueParis-GrignonFrance
  3. 3.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)ParisFrance
  4. 4.University of ReadingUK

Personalised recommendations