Perception and Awareness of Animal Welfare Among Residents of Malta

TL;DR

This study explores how Maltese residents perceive animal welfare and their willingness to pay for animal-friendly foods, finding moderate knowledge and support for welfare labels.

Contribution

The study provides new insights into Maltese consumer attitudes and behaviors toward animal welfare, emphasizing the potential of welfare labels to influence ethical purchasing.

Findings

Dairy cows were perceived as having the highest welfare, while broilers and pigs were seen as having the lowest.

Most respondents supported a national animal welfare label, with 84% expressing strong support.

Willingness to pay more for higher welfare standards was common but limited to price increases below 10%.

Abstract

This study investigated consumer perceptions and purchasing behaviour regarding animal welfare and animal-friendly foods in Malta. Respondents expressed different perceptions about the farming conditions of different species, with dairy cow welfare levels seen as the highest and broilers and pigs perceived as the lowest. Overall, the animal welfare knowledge level was moderate, with mass media (television, web, newspapers) serving as the primary information source. Most respondents considered animal welfare in food purchasing decisions, and there was broad support for welfare certification labels, including strong support (84%) for a national welfare label. Willingness to pay more for higher welfare standards was common, although the price increase accepted was generally low (below 10%). The availability of welfare-friendly products in Malta was perceived as limited (49% of respondents). Occupation, urban residence, and gender influenced animal welfare perception and support. These findings underline a potential role for welfare labels and transparent communication to support ethical purchasing behaviours, with implications for future policy improvements and consumer information.

A representative sample of Maltese citizens (N = 384) was surveyed about their perception and attitude towards animal welfare and animal-friendly foods. Knowledge about animal welfare was self-evaluated as moderate (36%) or good (27%), and mass media (television, web and newspapers) were the primary information source (73%). Dairy cows were perceived as having the highest welfare (average rating 3 on a 1-to-5 scale), while conditions for broilers and pigs were perceived as more critical (average rating 2.7). Respondents consider animal welfare important (64%), the availability of welfare-friendly products in Malta limited (49%), and would support a national animal-friendly label (84%). Although 49% were willing to pay more for animal-friendly products, the accepted price increase was limited (increase below 10% for 37% of respondents, 20% were not willing to pay more and 27% were price-sensitive). Chi-squared analysis showed that the respondents’ profession impacted the support towards an animal welfare label (p < 0.01), with business operators being the least interested. Urban respondents were more critical toward farm animal welfare and more supportive of establishing a national welfare label than rural respondents (p < 0.05). The latter were less convinced that their choices can influence the welfare of farm animals (p < 0.01). Women were more willing to pay for welfare improvements than men (p < 0.01). These findings emphasize a significant concern for animal welfare among respondents, coupled with a moderate willingness to pay. The strong support for a national animal welfare label warrants the question as to whether transparent labelling would allow consumers to translate their sensibility into ethical purchasing behaviour.

Figures