IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v105y2021ics0306919221001494.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An evaluation of four private animal health and welfare standards and associated quality assurance programmes for dairy cow production

Author

Listed:
  • More, S.J.
  • Marchewka, J.
  • Hanlon, A.
  • Balzani, A.
  • Boyle, L.

Abstract

Private standards in animal health and welfare (AHW) and associated quality assurance (QA) programmes are an important instrument for food policy with the potential to substantially improve AHW. However, there are concerns that they do not necessarily do so. In this study, we evaluated four private AHW standards and associated QA programmes for dairy cow production, from Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, using an existing (but adapted) conceptual framework. The framework considers criteria relating to programme goals including relevance to AHW, programme beneficiaries, effectiveness, efficiency and transparency. The current study focused on information that was publicly available online. We found limited objective information to support programme claims, although there were considerable differences between programmes. Across all programmes, problems were identified with respect to transparency, and attempts to scrutinise claims would not be a straightforward process for most consumers. Among the programmes, there were notable examples of best-practice in AHW, relating to science-based evidence, separation of risk assessment and risk management, animal-based measures, farm benchmarking, ongoing programme-level metrics and measurement, and ongoing programme review. There is a need for careful scrutiny of private standards and QA programmes, to provide consumers with assurance with respect to programme effectiveness and transparency. Further, it is important that programme efficiencies are maximised. There is a strong case for regulatory oversight of private standards in AHW and associated QA programmes. This could be within existing or defined policy instruments, both to facilitate the positive impact of these programmes and to build confidence among consumers of the validity of programme claims.

Suggested Citation

  • More, S.J. & Marchewka, J. & Hanlon, A. & Balzani, A. & Boyle, L., 2021. "An evaluation of four private animal health and welfare standards and associated quality assurance programmes for dairy cow production," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:105:y:2021:i:c:s0306919221001494
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102169
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919221001494
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102169?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miguel Carriquiry & Bruce A. Babcock, 2007. "Reputations, Market Structure, and the Choice of Quality Assurance Systems in the Food Industry," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(1), pages 12-23.
    2. Houghton, J.R. & Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. & Van Kleef, E. & Chryssochoidis, G. & Kehagia, O. & Korzen-Bohr, S. & Lassen, J. & Pfenning, U. & Strada, A., 2008. "The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 13-26, February.
    3. Annen, Dominic Norbert & Wieck, Christine & Kempen, Markus, 2013. "Animal Welfare in Public and Private Standards and On-Farm Compliance," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 62(03), pages 1-16, August.
    4. John Giles, 2015. "Change in the EU Dairy Sector Post Quota: More Milk, More Exports and a Changing Farmer Profile," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 14(3), pages 20-25, December.
    5. Kehlbacher, A. & Bennett, R. & Balcombe, K., 2012. "Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 627-633.
    6. Purwins, Nina & Schulze-Ehlers, Birgit, 2018. "Improving market success of animal welfare programs through key stakeholder involvement: heading towards responsible innovation?," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(4).
    7. Annen, Dominic Norbert & Wieck, Christine & Kempen, Markus, 2013. "Animal Welfare in Public and Private Standards and On-Farm Compliance," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 62(3).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gorton, Matthew & Yeh, Ching-Hua & Chatzopoulou, Elena & White, John & Tocco, Barbara & Hubbard, Carmen & Hallam, Fiona, 2023. "Consumers' willingness to pay for an animal welfare food label," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lynn J. Frewer, 2017. "Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 683-704.
    2. Minten, Bart & Singh, K.M. & Sutradhar, Rajib, 2011. "Branding in food retail of high value crops in Asia: Case of Makhana from Bihar (India)," MPRA Paper 54334, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 31 Jan 2011.
    3. Marcin Pigłowski, 2021. "The Intra-European Union Food Trade with the Relation to the Notifications in the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-19, February.
    4. Franco, Bruna Maria Remonato & Souza, Ana Paula Oliveira & Molento, Carla Forte Maiolino, 2018. "Welfare-friendly Products: availability, labeling and opinion of retailers in Curitiba, Southern Brazil1," Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural (RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 56(1), January.
    5. Bailey, Alison P. & Garforth, Chris, 2014. "An industry viewpoint on the role of farm assurance in delivering food safety to the consumer: The case of the dairy sector of England and Wales," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 14-24.
    6. Bontemps, Christophe & Bouamra-Mechemache, Zohra & Simioni, Michel, 2012. "Quality Labels and Firm Survival in the French Cheese Industry," TSE Working Papers 12-335, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    7. Wille, Stefan Clemens & Barklage, Britta & Spiller, Achim & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie, 2018. "Challenging factors of farmer-to-consumer direct marketing: An empirical analysis of German livestock owners," DARE Discussion Papers 1807, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    8. Eva Tebbe & Korbinian von Blanckenburg, 2018. "Does willingness to pay increase with the number and strictness of sustainability labels?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(1), pages 41-53, January.
    9. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2018. "Willingness to pay and moral stance: The case of farm animal welfare in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, August.
    10. Jesús Hernández-Rubio & Juan C. Pérez-Mesa & Laura Piedra-Muñoz & Emilio Galdeano-Gómez, 2018. "Determinants of Food Safety Level in Fruit and Vegetable Wholesalers’ Supply Chain: Evidence from Spain and France," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-15, October.
    11. Cope, S. & Frewer, L.J. & Houghton, J. & Rowe, G. & Fischer, A.R.H. & de Jonge, J., 2010. "Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 349-357, August.
    12. Finardi, Corrado & Pellegrini, Giuseppe & Rowe, Gene, 2012. "Food safety issues: From Enlightened Elitism towards Deliberative Democracy? An overview of EFSA’s “Public Consultation” instrument," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 427-438.
    13. Guan, Lijun & Zhang, Yan & Jin, Shaosheng & Zhou, Lin, 2021. "Understanding the low use rate of food nutrition information in China," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(5), April.
    14. Ramona Weinrich & Annabell Franz & Achim Spiller, 2016. "Multi-level labelling: too complex for consumers?," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 18(2), pages 155-172.
    15. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan & Wossink, Ada, 2012. "Using best–worst scaling to explore perceptions of relative responsibility for ensuring food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 661-670.
    16. G. C. Barker & C. Bayley & A. Cassidy & S. French & A. Hart & P. K. Malakar & J. Maule & M. Petkov & R. Shepherd, 2010. "Can a Participatory Approach Contribute to Food Chain Risk Analysis?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 766-781, May.
    17. Antonioli, Federico & Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano, 2022. "On Policy Interventions and Vertical Price Transmission: The Italian Milk Supply Chain Case," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 47(2), May.
    18. Jianyu Yu & Zohra Bouamra-Mechemache, 2016. "Production standards, competition and vertical relationship," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(1), pages 79-111.
    19. Uehleke, Reinhard & Hüttel, Silke, 2016. "The Hypothetical Free-Rider Deficit In The Demand For Farm Animal Welfare Labeled Meat," 56th Annual Conference, Bonn, Germany, September 28-30, 2016 244866, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    20. Baniak Andrzej & Grajzl Peter, 2013. "Equilibrium and Welfare in a Model of Torts with Industry Reputation Effects," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 265-302, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:105:y:2021:i:c:s0306919221001494. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.