The term sustainability has many meanings. Sustainability is often associated with low-impact practices and practices that contribute to reducing climate change. However, sustainability can be used for practices that improve worker well-being.
Consumers often associate dairy products, because they are animal products, with climate change and animal suffering. What do consumers value most among all these factors? They would be willing to spend more money for a reduction in animal suffering, or GHG emissions.
In a new article in Food Quality and Preference, researchers examined which aspects of dairy production are of most concern to Swiss consumers.
Will consumers pay more to ensure animal welfare?
Recent studies show that many consumers will pay more for improved animal welfare. This includes increased cow-calf interaction during dehorning and greater access to the outdoors.
Switzerland's mountainous terrain makes it difficult to produce plant-based foods. It is ideal for dairy farming, which depends on grasslands. Animal welfare must therefore be a priority in Switzerland.
This study used a discrete choice experiment (DCE), which was designed to test what consumers would do in real life. Participants were asked whether, under certain circumstances, they would be willing to pay more for butter or milk.
According to the study, consumers prefer organic dairy production over conventional dairy production, free-range and on-farm slaughtering of animals rather than transporting them to slaughterhouses. The study found that consumers are in favour of reducing GHG emissions as long as they do not negatively impact animals.
Animal housing was a major concern for consumers. The study calculated that if desired improvements were made to animal conditions in milk and dairy production, they would pay on average CHF 2.73 (EUR 2.90) more per person per month for butter and CHF 2.56 (EUR 2.72) more for milk. According to the study, if animal welfare improvements were implemented for milk and dairy production, they could expect to pay CHF 2.73 per person (EUR 2.90) more per month for milk.
For milk, this would represent a monthly increase of 1.01 % in the food budget and an overall increase in monthly expenditure of 0.13 %. Butter would result in an increase in the food budget of 0.96 % and an increase in total expenditure of 0.12 %. Consumers' willingness to pay more was also greater than the cost of switching.
Housing costs would increase more than any improvements in animal welfare. The study also highlights that they affect an animal's life more than other aspects.
What will consumers prioritize when GHG emissions reductions conflict with animal welfare?
This research examined whether consumers were willing to pay more for milk if it was linked to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The result of this research was not as significant, but still less than the improvement in animal welfare.
Consumers would not be willing to pay more if GHG emission reductions conflicted with animal welfare. This could lead to reduced animal welfare. In fact, there was a negative relationship between willingness to pay more and reduced animal welfare. This was even true when it came to supporting GHG emission reductions.
Source: Food Preferences and Quality
“Animal welfare is a priority: Swiss consumer preferences for animal welfare, greenhouse gas reductions and other improvements in dairy sustainability”
Published on: October 24, 2024
Doi: 10.1038/s41585-024-00939-y
Authors: S Richter, H Stolz, AL Martinez-Cruz, A Kachi
English 
French