Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T20:06:39.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public perceptions of undercover investigations in livestock farming: An end that justifies the means?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

M Schulze ,
A Risius  and
A Spiller
M Schulze*
Affiliation:
Georg-August-University of Goettingen, Marketing for Food and Agricultural Products, Department for Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
A Risius
Affiliation:
Georg-August-University of Goettingen, Marketing for Food and Agricultural Products, Department for Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
A Spiller
Affiliation:
Georg-August-University of Goettingen, Marketing for Food and Agricultural Products, Department for Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
*
* Contact for correspondence: maureen.schulze@agr.uni-goettingen.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Secretly taken photographs of livestock production systems, representing animal welfare violations, regularly appear in the media and initiate discussions as to the legitimacy of overriding legal regulations in order to document animal welfare standards. This paper focuses on the public perspective and compares different forms of undercover investigation, weighing animal welfare against the invasion of farmers’ privacy. For this purpose, an exploratory online survey was conducted in Germany (n = 292). Participants were carefully selected to ensure that age range, education level and sex reflected the distribution of the society as a whole. In a split-sample survey, each participant was confronted with three scenarios. The scenarios were mapped using pictures showing various levels of farm conditions combined with small information segments describing the invasion of farmers’ privacy. Participants evaluated the scenarios for their perceived legitimacy and whether entering the premises should be punished. All forms of undercover investigation were perceived as legitimate by most respondents. Perceived legitimacy was considerably higher when obvious animal abuse was uncovered. Apart from where damage to property was involved, which was mostly considered as unacceptable, harsher punishment for animal welfare organisations generally obtained little social approval. The public's increasing awareness of farm animal welfare overruled social norms regarding farmers’ privacy, and thereby demonstrated the importance of animal welfare in society. Approval of undercover investigations indicated that changes in housing and handling conditions as well as improvement in control mechanisms are necessary to increase animal welfare and thus public acceptance of livestock production.

Keywords

animal welfarelivestock productionpigssecret picturesundercover investigationwhistle-blowing
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 39 - 47
Copyright
© 2021 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

ARM (Animal Recovery Mission) 2019 The biggest undercover dairy investigation in history – Fair oaks farms and Coca Cola. https://vimeo.com/340292407Google Scholar
ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) 2012 Research shows Americans overwhelmingly sup-port investigations to expose animal abuse on industrial farms. http://www.aspca.org/sites/default/files/public_memo_aspca_farm _animal_research_ag_gag.pdfGoogle Scholar
ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) 2019 What is ag-gag legislation? https://www.aspca.org/ani-mal-protection/public-policy/what-ag-gag-legislationGoogle Scholar
Associated Press 2017 Undercover video shows shocking cow abuse. New York Post online. https://nypost.com/2017/11/10/under-cover-video-shows-shocking-cow-abuse/Google Scholar
Boogaard, BK, Boekhorst, LJS, Oosting, SJ and Sørensen, JT 2011 Socio-cultural sustainability of pig production: Citizen per-ceptions in the Netherlands and Denmark. Livestock Science 140(1-3): 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busch, G, Gauly, SA and Spiller, A 2017 I spy with my little eye: an eye-tracking study regarding the perception and evaluation of pictures from pig fattening barns. German Journal of Agricultural Economics 66: 65–84Google Scholar
Busch, G, Gauly, SA, von Meyer-Höfer, M and Spiller, A 2019 Does picture background matter? People's evaluation of pigs in different farm settings. PLoS One 14(2): e0211256. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211256CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Busch, G, Schwetje, C and Spiller, A 2015 Bewertung der Tiergerechtheit in der intensiven Hähnchenmast durch Bürger anhand von Bildern: ein Survey Experiment. German Journal of Agricultural Economics 64: 131–147. [Title translation: Citizens’ eval-uation of animal welfare on pictures of intensive broiler fattening]Google Scholar
Busch, G and Spiller, A 2018 Pictures in public communications about livestock farming. Animal Frontiers 8(1): 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfx003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caracciolo, F, Cicia, G, Del Giudice, T, Cembalo, L, Krystallis, A, Grunert, KG and Lombardi, P 2016 Human val-ues and preferences for cleaner livestock production. Journal of Cleaner Production 112: 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle-pro.2015.06.045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, B, Stewart, GB, Panzone, LA, Kyriazakis, I and Frewer, LJ 2016 A systematic review of public attitudes, perceptions and behaviors towards production diseases associated with farm animal welfare. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics 29: 455–478. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, B, Stewart, GB, Panzone, LA, Kyriazakis, I and Frewer, LJ 2017 Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies. Food Policy 68: 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.01.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornish, A, Raubenheimer, D and McGreevy, P 2016 What we know about the public's level of concern for farm animal wel-fare in food production in developed countries. Animals 6(74). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6110074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Destatis (Federal Statistical Office) 2011 Wer produziert unsere Lebensmittel? Aktuelle Ergebnisse aus der Landwirtschaftszählung 2010. https://www.destatis.de/GPStatistik/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/DEMonografie_deriva-te_00001484/WerProduziertNahrungsmittel.pdf;jsessionid=76A1009DDC3A3F7FD2DB5621AE562B43. [Title translation: Who produces our food? Current results from the 2010 agricultural census]Google Scholar
Deter, A 2017 OLG bestätigt Rechtmäßigkeit von Stalleinstieg durch Tierrechtler. https://www.topagrar.com/news/Home-top-News-Gericht-bestaetigt-Rechtmaessigkeit-von-Stalleinstieg-durch-Tierrechtler-9056491.html. [Title translation: Regional appeal court confirms legality of undercover investigations by animal rights activists]Google Scholar
Döring, N and Bortz, J 2016 Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften. Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41089-5. [Title translation: Research methods and evaluation in the social and human sciences]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAKT 2019 Milchviehskandal in Bayern – Mangelt es an Kontrollen? https://www.ardmediathek.de/daserste/player/Y3JpZDovL21kci5kZS9i ZWl0cmFnL2Ntcy9mMWQzY2ExMS03NWQ5LTRjMjEtOTBiNi00 ZWY1ZjgwNDRmNmM/milchviehskandal-in-bayern-mangelt-es-an-kontrollen. [Title translation: Dairy cow scandal in Bavaria – is there a lack of controls?]Google Scholar
Federal Statistical Office 2016 Statistical Yearbook. Federal Statistical Office: Wiesbaden, Germany. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/StatistischesJahrbuch/St atistischesJahrbuch2016.pdf?__blob=publicationFileGoogle Scholar
Feldmann, C and Hamm, U 2015 Consumers’ perception and preferences for local food: a review. Food Quality and Preference 40: 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.food-qual.2014.09.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J 2001 The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intu-itionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108:814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.108.4.814CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, J 2014 On the ethics of ag-gag legislation and undercov-er investigations. Northern Plains Ethics Journal (Fall 2014): 30–39Google Scholar
Kano, F and Tomonaga, M 2009 How chimpanzees look at pictures: a comparative eye-tracking study. Proceedings Biological Sciences 276(1664): 1949–1955. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1811Google Scholar
Kogut, T and Ritov, I 2005 The ‘identified victim’ effect: an iden-tified group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 18: 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroeber-Riel, W and Esch, FR 2011 Strategie und Technik der Werbung. In: Diller, H and Köhler, R (eds) Edition Marketing. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart, Germany. [Title translation: Strategy and advertising technique]Google Scholar
Lenfers, C 2019 Fall Röring: Alarmanlage und Lüftung manipuliert. https://www.topagrar.com/schwein/news/fall-roering-alarmanla-ge-und-lueftung-manipuliert-10152315.html. [Title translation: Alarm system and ventilation manipulated]Google Scholar
Liebe, U, Jahnke, B and Heitholt, U 2017 Tier-Mensch-Beziehungen, Einblicke in die Bevölkerungsmeinung. In: Forschungsschwerpunkt Tier-Mensch-Gesellschaft (ed) Vielfältig verflochten: Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zur Tier-Mensch- Relationalität. Transcript: Bielefeld, Germany. [Title translation: Animal-human relations, insights into the public perspective]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marceau, JF 2015 Ag gag past, present, and future. Seattle University Law Review 38: 1317–1344Google Scholar
Moy, GG 2018 The role of whistleblowers in protecting the safe-ty and integrity of the food supply. Science of Food 2(8): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-018-0017-5Google Scholar
NBC 2019 New undercover video shows alleged abuse at another dairy farm. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/natural-prairie-fairlife-dairy-undercover-investigation-animal-recovery-mission-513106531.htmlGoogle Scholar
Pittroff, E 2014 Whistleblowing systems and legitimacy theory: a study of the motivation to implement whistle-blowing systems in German organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 124: 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1880-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, JA, Franks, B, Weary, DM and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2016 Awareness of ag-gag laws erodes trust in farmers and increases support for animal welfare regulations. Food Policy 61:121–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.02.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulze, M, Risius, A and Spiller, A 2018 Heimliche Stallaufnahmen aus gesellschaftlicher Sicht im Wechselspiel zwi-schen Landwirtschaft, Tierschutzorganisationen und staatlichen Kontrollmechanismen. German Journal of Agricultural Economics Special Issue: Future Options for Animal Husbandry in Europe 67(4): 267–280. [Title translation: A public perspective of undercover investigations in animal husbandry: an interaction between agriculture, animal welfare organisations and governmental control]Google Scholar
Shea, M 2014 Punishing animal rights activists for animal abuse: rapid reporting and the new wave of ag-gag laws. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 48(8): 337–371Google Scholar
Suchman, MC 1995 Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, TE 2005 Are business students buying it? A theoretical framework for measuring attitudes toward the legitimacy of envi-ronmental sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment 14:186–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiplady, CM, Walsh, DB and Phillips, CJC 2013 Public response to media coverage of animal cruelty. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26: 869–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-012-9412-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiplady, CM, Walsh, DAB and Phillips, CJC 2015 Ethical issues concerning the public viewing of media broadcasts of ani-mal cruelty. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28(4): 635–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9547-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weible, D, Christoph-Schulz, I, Salamon, P and Zander, K 2016 Citizens’ perception of modern pig production in Germany: a mixed-method research approach. British Food Journal 118(8):2014-2032. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2015-0458CrossRefGoogle Scholar