This article is online at http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~news/story.php?id=3132
05/09/2005
Writer:
Martha Filipic
filipic.3@osu.edu
(614) 292-9833
Source:
Jeff Sharp
sharp.123@osu.edu
(614) 292-9410
Holli Kendall
kendall.12@osu.edu
(614) 292-1354
According to an Ohio State University survey of more than 1,800 Ohioans, 92 percent said they agreed or strongly agreed that it is important that farm animals are well-cared for, and 85 percent said the quality of life for farm animals is important even when they are used for meat.
In addition, 81 percent agreed that "the well-being of farm animals is just as important as the well-being of pets," and 75 percent agreed that "farm animals should be protected from feeling physical pain."
"Nearly everyone says animals should be treated well," said Jeff Sharp, a rural sociologist with the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC) and Ohio State University Extension. "But there's a question of how you define that. The bottom line is that we may have a ways to go before we've figured out how to optimally balance consumer concerns and production demands to meet everyone's needs."
Sharp, who is also an associate professor in Ohio State's Department of Human and Community Resource Development (HCRD), led the team that conducted the Ohio Survey of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Issues. The biennial statewide survey of rural and urban Ohioans is supported by HCRD, OSU Extension, OARDC, and the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences.
Despite strong support for animal welfare in general, respondents were divided on how they felt about using animals for some purposes. Survey results showed that 57 percent of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that "Humans should be able to use animals for any purpose," with 22 percent agreeing with that statement and 21 percent undecided.
Respondents were even more ambivalent when asked specifically about using animals to grow organs for human transplants. Forty percent were undecided on whether "it is acceptable to use animals to grow organs for humans," while 33 percent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement and 27 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Currently, heart valves from pigs are routinely used in human heart surgeries. But the technology to allow full organ transplants from animals, such as livers from genetically modified pigs, is beginning to make headway.
"This is such a new concept, people haven't been able to determine how they feel about it," said Holli Kendall, a rural sociology doctoral student who is helping analyze survey results.
In addition, Sharp said that a majority (54 percent) of Ohioans are very concerned about the genetic modification of animals. This is in contrast to only a third of Ohioans expressing a strong concern about the genetic modification of plants.
Not surprisingly, the extent of respondents' experience in rural areas -- whether it involved contact with farmers or simply going hunting or fishing -- influenced how they responded to animal welfare questions, Kendall said.
"We found this in the 2002 survey, too -- that respondents with a more rural background were more utilitarian in their view of animals, weighing costs and benefits, while others gave more weight to emotional, moral and ethical concerns. It appears that people from more urban areas tend to have a more emotional connection with animals in general."
Because larger proportions of Ohioans now live in urban areas, this finding could have consequences for the meat production industry, the researchers said. But, it is important to note that two-thirds of the respondents (67 percent) were either undecided or indicated they were not interested in learning more about farm animals. "It may be that people don't want to know the specifics of where their meat comes from," Kendall said.
"Perhaps people prefer to a veil of ignorance regarding how their food is produced," Sharp said. "On the face of it, everyone is sympathetic toward animals, but people are not necessarily aware of the details of how the food production system is organized."
However, Kendall said that some consumers are becoming more aware.
"Animal welfare and rights groups are growing, and they are going to continue to bring this issue to the public," Kendall said. "Industry needs to pay attention." If animal welfare and rights groups do attract more mainstream support, this could result in changes to the meat production system, the researchers said.
Additionally, many respondents said they are willing to put their money where their mouth is: More than half of survey respondents said they would pay more for meat, poultry, or dairy if it was labeled as coming from humanely treated animals. Of those, 43 percent said they would pay 10 percent more, and 12 percent said they would pay 25 percent more.
"As people become more aware of food issues, this is something the livestock sector needs to think about," Sharp said. Changes in consumer attitudes could have economic consequences: According to the Ohio Agricultural Statistics Service, the value of Ohio's livestock production totaled $1.6 billion in 2002, the last year for which statistics are available.
The 10-page survey included questions on respondents' experience on farms and rural areas; their attitudes on food, agriculture and the environment; and their perceptions of food and health issues. It was conducted in summer 2002 and summer 2004, and is planned again for early 2006. The 2004 survey was sent to 3,500 Ohioans and had a response rate of 56 percent. More details are available on the survey's Web site, http://ohiosurvey.osu.edu.