Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jan 24;8(2):17.
doi: 10.3390/ani8020017.

Exploring the Framing of Animal Farming and Meat Consumption: On the Diversity of Topics Used and Qualitative Patterns in Selected Demographic Contexts

Hanneke J Nijland  1   2 , Noelle Aarts  3   4 , Cees M J van Woerkum  5
Affiliations

Exploring the Framing of Animal Farming and Meat Consumption: On the Diversity of Topics Used and Qualitative Patterns in Selected Demographic Contexts

Hanneke J Nijland et al. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

In various contexts, people talk about animal farming and meat consumption using different arguments to construct and justify their (non-)acceptability. This article presents the results of an in-depth qualitative inquiry into the content of and contextual patterns in the everyday-life framing regarding this issue, performed among consumers in various settings in two extremes in the European sphere: the Netherlands and Turkey. We describe the methodological steps of collecting, coding, and organizing the variety of encountered framing topics, as well as our search for symbolic convergence in groups of consumers from different selected demographic contexts (country, urban-rural areas, gender, age, and education level). The framing of animal farming and meat consumption in everyday-life is not a simple one-issue rational display of facts; people referred to a vast range of topics in the categories knowledge, convictions, pronounced behaviour, values, norms, interests, and feelings. Looking at framing in relation to the researched demographic contexts, most patterns were found on the level of topics; symbolic convergence in lines of reasoning and composite framing was less prominent in groups based on single demographic contexts than anticipated. An explanation for this lies in the complexity of frame construction, happening in relation with multiple interdependent contextual features.

Keywords: animal farming; animal welfare; complexity; contextual influence; environmental impact; framing; human health; meat consumption; taste; topics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Example results to illustrate our visual interview techniques: (a) Circles of relational distance/emotional value: “How close do they feel to you?”, using the items presented in Table 1; (b) Lines of items eaten in daily life vs in exceptional cases; (c) Free-listing on the topic “eating meat” (“Red; Juicy; Tender; Luxury; Melting on your tongue; Hunt; Action; Company”); (d) Free-listing on the topic “production of meat” (“Busy; Meadow; Commerce; Consumption—a lot!”).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Circles of a respondent (Turkey, male, 15–30, urban) assigning equal importance to humans and other animals (the only cards positioned in the outer circles were tomato, carrot, and egg).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Te Velde H., Aarts N., van Woerkum C. Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics. 2002;15:203–219. doi: 10.1023/A:1015012403331. - DOI
    1. Boogaard B.K., Oosting S.J., Bock B. Defining sustainability as a socio-cultural concept: Citizen panels visiting dairy farms in the Netherlands. Livest. Sci. 2008;117:24–33. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2007.11.004. - DOI
    1. McGlone J.J. Farm animal welfare in the context of other society issues: Toward sustainable systems. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2001;72:75–81. doi: 10.1016/S0301-6226(01)00268-8. - DOI
    1. Nijland H.J., van Trijp H.C.M., Aarts N.M.C., Ingenbleek P.T.M. What is careful livestock farming? Substantiating the layered meaning of the term ‘careful’ and drawing implications for the stakeholder dialogue. NJAS: Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2013;66:23–31. doi: 10.1016/j.njas.2013.05.005. - DOI
    1. Schicktanz S. Ethical considerations of the human-animal relationship under conditions of asymmetry and ambivalence. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics. 2006;19:7–16. doi: 10.1007/s10806-005-4374-0. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources