Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
We were known as WSPA(World Society for the Protection of Animals)
Consumer Perceptions on Animal Welfare and Food Safety across East Africa
Dr. Victor YAMO,Campaigns Manager – Animals in Farming,
Phone: +254 738 361631,[email protected]
@MoveTheWorldAF
Presentation made to at a Media Breakfast on 19th September 2019 at Silver Springs Hotel, Nairobi, Kenya
World Animal Protection
• We are World Animal Protection
• We end the needless suffering of animals.
• We influence decision makers to put animals on the global agenda.
• We help the world see how important animals are to all of us.
• We inspire people to change animals’ lives for the better.
• We move the world to protect animals.
A World where Animals Live free from Cruelty and Suffering
We Move the World to Protect Animals
OurVision
OurMission
STUDY OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN
Study Objectives
❑ Evaluate Consumer’s Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices around sourcing
and consumption of meat products.
❑Identify the main supermarkets and fast food restaurants where meats are
purchased.
❑Determine the main types of meats consumed and consumption patterns.
❑Determine level of consumer awareness on Animal Welfare, Food Safety
and Antibiotics Use.
❑Identify the Consumer’s source of information and their level of engagement
on digital (social media) platforms.
The study targeted Consumers within majorcenters of four (4) Eastern Africa countries1. Kenya
• Nairobi• Kisumu• Mombasa
2. Tanzania• Arusha• Dar es Salaam
3. Uganda• Kampala• Entebbe• Jinja
4. Zambia• Lusaka
Study Area
1
2
3
4
Study type
• Literature review conducted to map supermarkets and fastfood restaurants in the 4 countries
• A survey was conducted to understand perceptions of meatconsumption in the four countries
Study design
Study population
• Targeted all Consumers over 15 years of age
• Questionnaires administered in and around shopping centers,malls, restaurants and gatherings like exhibitions, conferences.
• Questionnaires also administered digitally
STUDY FINDINGS
The study achieved to engage with 1,346 respondents
• 1082-manual
• 264-electronic
Other Countries captured:
• South Africa 19
• Nigeria 4
• Egypt 1
• Namibia 1
• Brazil 1
• Mozambique 1
• Rwanda 1Kenya, 656,
49%
Uganda, 217, 16%
Tanzania, 273, 20%
Zambia, 172, 13%
Other, 28, 2%
Respondents per Country
Socio-demographic & Psychographic characteristics
GenderMales: 51.8% Females: 48.2%
53.9
55.3
48.1
50
21.4
51.8
46.1
44.7
51.9
50
78.6
48.2
Kenya
Uganda
Tanzania
Zambia
Other
Overall
Male Female
Age DistributionOverall: 20–24 years 19.2%, 25–29 years 14.5%
5.1
20.3
5.1
7.6
3.7
7.8
17.6
35.9
11.4
20.3
3.7
19.2
17.1
10.1
15.8
10.5
3.7
14.5
11.1
10.1
17.6
19.2
3.7
13.1
12
9.7
18.3
14.5
7.4
13.1
11.7
8.3
15.4
11.6
3.7
11.7
9.7
2.8
7.3
6.4
18.5
7.8
8.8
1.8
4
4.7
7.4
6.1
6.8
0.9
5.1
5.2
48.1
6.1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Kenya
Uganda
Tanzania
Zambia
Other
Overall
15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55
3.7 5.1 6.6 5.2 0 4.6
15.926.3
14.725
19.218.5
33.5
32.7
38.633.7
42.3 34.5
28.3
24.9 28.3 23.815.4 26.8
18.411.1 11.8 12.2
23.115.1
0.2 0 0 0 0 0.1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Kenya Uganda Tanzania Zambia Other Overall
No /Primary Education Secondary/ High School College Cert/ Diploma Undergraduate Postgraduate Other
Level of Education
Overall: College Cert/Diploma 34.5%
Employment
3.6
4.9
6.7
16.2
12.6
5.6
2.7
25.1
21.3
0.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Academia
Casual
NGO Sector
Private Sector
Public Sector
Unemployed
Retired
Self Employed
Student
Other
Overall: Self Employed 25.1%, Students 21.3%
MEAT CONSUMPTION PATTERNS
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Kenya Uganda Tanzania Zambia Other Total
5.00.5
4.8 5.8
25.0
4.8
59.8
64.5
44.7
51.2
60.756.4
35.1 35.0
50.5
43.0
14.3
38.8
Vegan/Vegeterian Limited consumption Carnivore
Meat Consumption Preference
Overall: Limited Consumption 56.4%, Carnivore 38.8%, Vegan/Veg 4.8%
Most Consumed Meat
Most do not eat pork due to religious reasons and perceived possible health problems that can be brought by the consumption.
57.3
93.1
84.3
34.6
72.0
21.0
76.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Pork Chicken Beef Mutton Goat Rabbit Fish
Overall: Chicken 93.1%, Beef 84.3%, Fish 76.0%
50.7
92.6 84.7
42.9
75.7
21.4
79.4
Pork Chicken Beef Mutton Goat Rabbit Fish
Kenya
65.495.4 82.9
38.0
78.2
37.0
78.7
Pork Chicken Beef Mutton Goat Rabbit Fish
Uganda
59.6
93.5 85.4
13.8
62.7
9.2
70.8
Pork Chicken Beef Mutton Goat Rabbit Fish
Tanzania
60.5
93.2 85.8
30.9
71.6
18.5
69.1
Pork Chicken Beef Mutton Goat Rabbit Fish
Zambia
Most Consumed Meat
Meat consumers do not frequently eat chicken due to the cost
Frequency of Chicken Consumption
Frequency of Chicken consumption affected mainly by cost
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Kenya
Uganda
Tanzania
Zambia
Total
2.7
3.7
2.4
1.3
2.8
36.7
31.9
26.6
26.9
32.3
17.6
14.8
27.0
21.3
19.2
11.1
7.4
0.0
4.4
8.3
27.5
35.2
4.8
40.0
32.3
3.5
6.5
34.5
5.6
4.5
Don't consume Occasionally Monthly Fortnightly Weekly Daily Other
Overall: Occasionally 32.3%, Weekly 32.3% (Tanzania Daily)
Frequency of Pork Consumption
Most do not eat pork due to religious reasons and perceived possible health problems that can be brought by the consumption.
39.4
34.9
40.0
37.7
38.7
40.8
23.1
26.5
29.9
33.6
9.4
16.0
15.1
15.6
12.4
3.5
4.2
5.7
4.5
4.3
5.5
18.4
12.2
9.1
9.3
.8
1.9
0.0
2.6
1.1
.6
1.4
.4
.6
.6
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Kenya
Uganda
Tanzania
Zambia
Total
Don't consume Occasionally Monthly Fortnightly Weekly Daily Other
Overall: Don’t Consume 38.7%, Occasionally 33.6%
Most Common Meal
Overall: Lunch 46.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Kenya Uganda Tanzania Zambia Total
46.735.9
51.9 49.7 46.1
17.722.8
16.916.8 18.9
2.33.9
8.23.5 3.8
29.5 32.517.7
25.9 26.9
Breakfast Lunch Dinner Snack No particular time
Sources of Meat & Meat-products
64.7
54
79.4
66.5 65.2
3.16.6
0.4 1.3 2.93.1
11.3
5.2 4.4 5.2
23.3 23
10.7
19 20.7
4.2 5.2 47 4.8
1.6 0.0 0.4 1.9 1.20
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Kenya Uganda Tanzania Zambia Total
%
Butchery Slaughtery Restaurant Supermarket Farm Other
Overall: Butchery 65.2%, Supermarket 20.7%
Preferred Supermarkets & fast food restaurants and factors that influence their choice
Preferred Supermarkets: Kenya
Main factors influencing choice of preferred supermarket in Kenya (in order of importance):
• Convenient location (61.8%)
• Quality/food safety (56.6%)
• Low prices (49.3%)
Location SupermarketFrequency
Percent (%)1st 2nd Total
Nairobi
Naivas 104 35 139 21.2
Tuskys 56 50 106 16.2Carrefour 31 0 31 4.7Chandarana 15 9 24 3.7Clean Shelf 14 0 14 2.1Quickmatt 0 4 4 0.6Choppies 0 3 3 0.5
Mombasa
Naivas 30 26 56 8.5Tuskys 34 15 49 7.5Carrefour 0 3 3 0.5Chandarana 9 3 12 1.8Budget 0 3 3 0.5
Kisumu
Naivas 9 6 15 2.3Tuskys 35 7 42 6.4Tumaini 11 11 22 3.4
Nakumatt 5 5 10 1.5Choppies 2 0 2 0.3Keitas 0 7 7 1.1
Kenya
Naivas 143 67 210 32.0Tuskys 125 72 197 30.0Carrefour 31 3 34 5.2Chandarana 24 12 36 5.5Tumaini 11 11 22 3.4Nakumatt 5 5 10 1.5
Reason for Selecting Preferred SupermarketConvenient Location (61.8%), Safe food (56.6%) and Price / Value (49.3%)
49.338.9
61.8
28
10.1
56.6
42.4
11.5
47.4
21.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70Lo
w p
rice
s/go
od
val
ue
Go
od
sp
eci
al o
ffer
Co
nvi
nie
nt
loca
tio
n
Easy
car
par
kin
g
Hig
h A
nim
al w
elfa
reSt
and
ard
s
Qu
alit
y /S
afe
fo
od
/fr
esh
nes
s
Wid
er
vari
ety
of
foo
d
Eth
ical
val
ues
alig
ned
to
my
valu
es
Go
od
cu
sto
mer
se
rvic
e
Enjo
yab
le s
ho
pp
ing
exp
erie
nce
%
Important Parameters: Supermarket
4.4
12.9
8.4
5.8
6.7
4
10.4
9.2
10.3
6.8
5.4
12.4
19.7
8.3
9.7
10.4
13.9
15.5
16
12.6
75.8
50.2
47.3
59.6
64.3
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Kenya
Uganda
Tanzania
Zambia
Total
Importance of Freshness/free from contamination
Least Important Not Important Neither/Nor
Important Most Important
19.2
26.1
11.7
16.9
18.5
15.2
11.6
11.7
14.9
13.7
18.3
18.1
31
19.6
20.3
15.5
21.6
27.9
23
19.7
31.8
22.6
17.8
25.7
27.9
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Kenya
Uganda
Tanzania
Zambia
Total
Importance of how animals raised
Least Important Not Important Neither/Nor
Important Most Important
Important Parameters: Supermarket
14.8
19.5
7
10.3
13.5
8.1
12
11.4
13.8
10
13
19.5
33.3
21.4
18.9
14.2
22
24.4
20.7
18.3
49.9
27
23.9
33.8
39.3
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Kenya
Uganda
Tanzania
Zambia
Total
Importance of Organic/non-GMO products
Least Important Not Important Neither/Nor
Important Most Important
9
18.9
7.5
6.9
10.1
8.2
11.9
4.3
9.7
8.2
9.2
19.9
21.4
15.2
13.9
12.1
18.4
25.7
22.1
16.9
61.5
30.8
41.2
46.2
50.9
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Kenya
Uganda
Tanzania
Zambia
Total
Importance of products free from Chemicals
Least Important Not Important Neither/Nor
Important Most Important
Important Parameters: Supermarket
18.1
23.9
8.8
14.9
16.6
12.7
13.4
13.2
12.3
12.6
19.5
17.4
28.6
21.4
20.9
16.6
18.9
27.3
18.8
19.3
33.1
26.4
22
32.5
30.6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Kenya
Uganda
Tanzania
Zambia
Total
Importance of Welfare during transportation
Least Important Not Important Neither/Nor
Important Most Important
19.9
26.8
10.1
16.3
18.6
14.3
12.1
16.1
15
14
16.4
17.7
30.7
23.8
19.9
16.4
17.7
27.1
19
18.8
33.1
25.8
16.1
25.9
28.8
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Kenya
Uganda
Tanzania
Zambia
Total
Importance of Welfare during slaughter
Least Important Not Important Neither/Nor
Important Most Important
Favorite Fast Food Restaurant: Kenya
Main factors influencing choice of preferred restaurant:
• Taste of food (67%)
• Price of the meal (67%)
• Freshness of the food was third (65%)
Location` RestaurantFrequency
Percent (%)1st 2nd Total
Nairobi
Java House 65 14 79 12.0KFC 35 20 55 8.4Chicken inn 27 13 40 6.1Tuskys 8 0 8 1.2Pizza Inn 0 12 12 1.8CJs 0 12 12 1.8Galitos 0 7 7 1.1
Mombasa
Naivas 18 5 23 3.5Pizza Inn 15 0 15 2.3Galitos 9 15 24 3.7Chicken inn 9 8 17 2.6Java House 6 2 8 1.2Little Chef 2 0 2 0.3Steers 2 0 2 0.3McFrys 0 1 1 0.2
Kisumu
KFC 27 3 30 4.6Acacia 10 9 19 2.9Savana 9 0 9 1.4Sunset 8 0 8 1.2Java House 7 0 7 1.1Five Star 0 3 3 0.5Tuskys 0 2 2 0.3Imperial 0 2 2 0.3
Location RestaurantFrequency Percent
(%)1st 2nd Total
Kenya
Java House 78 16 94 14.3
KFC 62 23 85 13.0
Chicken inn 36 21 57 8.7
Pizza Inn 26 5 31 4.7
Galitos 9 15 24 3.7
Naivas 18 5 23 3.5
Reasons for selecting preferred restaurant
66.5
54
64.6
22
16.3
65.1
34.3
10.9
67.1
20.8
20.1
22.1
18.9
19.9
11.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Price affordable and reasonable
Choice/variety of foods available
Friendly and efficient service
Great promotions
High animal welfare standards
Freshness/expiry date
Quantity/package size
Animals are humanely raised
Taste of food
Convinience of packaging
Brand
Size of individual pieces of meat
Environmentally friendly packaging
No chemicals
Non GMO/freerange produce
Taste of Food (67.1%), Price (66.5%) and Service (Friendly) (64.6%)
Commitments Retailers should make to attract and retain customers
83.2
72.7
89.986.1
82.7
14.8
24.4
710.8
14.6
2 2.9 3.1 3.2 2.60
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Kenya Uganda Tanzania Zambia Total
More About the same Less
Food safety
82.7% will purchase more if food safety is assured
53.9
42.4
32.2
43.546.4
37.1
47.1
53.5
44.2 42.9
9 10.514.3
12.3 10.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Kenya Uganda Tanzania Zambia Total
More About the same Less
Locally produced animals
46.4% will purchase more if animals were locally raised
55.1
41.436.7
42.8
92
48.3
37.544.3 44.1 43.4
4
40
7.414.3
19.213.8
4
11.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Kenya Uganda Tanzania Zambia Other Total
More About the same Less
Animal welfare friendly production
48.3% will purchase more if production was animal welfare friendly
62.4
44.538.2
46.1
84
52.9
33.4
43.1
52.8
46.1
8
40
4.2
12.48.9 7.9 8 7.1
Kenya Uganda Tanzania Zambia Other Total
More About the same Less
Sustainable production
52.9% will purchase more if production was environmentally friendly
78.5
54.560.1
63.968.8
17.5
34.9
23.3 25.2 22.6
410.5
16.611 8.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Kenya Uganda Tanzania Zambia Total
More About the same Less
Food free of chemicals
68.8% will purchase more if assured that food is free of chemicals
67.5
40.5 38.9
52.955.3
27.4
48.144.9
36.6 35.6
5.1
11.416.2
10.5 9.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Kenya Uganda Tanzania Zambia Total
More About the same Less
Organic / Free Range
55.3% will purchase more if assured that food is organic/free range
Consumer awareness on antibiotics use and importance of animal welfare during
production
Kenya Uganda Tanzania Zambia Total
26.6
32.4
24.3
28.726.9
38.5
43.2 43 43.340.4
18.916.9
27.9
21.7 20.9
16
7.54.8
6.4
11.9
Never Sometimes Often All the time
Animal Welfare during shopping73.2% think about the life of the animal
Kenya
29%
Uganda
14%
Tanzania
17%
Zambia
17%
Other
23%
Concerns on welfare of farm animals
Respondents from Kenya had the most concerns on welfare of farm
animals
79% are indicated awareness that poor animal welfare affects the
quality of meat
Antibiotics Free Production
72.6% indicated willingness to pay more for antibiotics free meat/products
Concerns on the Antibiotics Use
61.7% of respondents aware that animals in poor welfare production
systems receive antibiotics
76.4% indicated that antibiotics have an impact on consumer health
X
Sourcing of Meat Products76.2% (overall) and 75%.0 in Kenya would stop sourcing as well as tell family and friends to also stop if restaurants/supermarkets had poor animal welfare practices
38.2 38.0
10.8 10.3
2.7
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
I would stop
& tell
friends/fami
Yes I would
stop
Would
consider
Would
consider but
still shop th
Would
continue
shopping
there
39.036.0
11.9 11.0
2.1
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Yes I would
stop
I would stop
& tell
friends/fami
Would
consider
Would
consider but
still shop th
Would
continue
shopping
there
Customer’s Sources of Information
Main Source of Information
Overall: TV 38% Digital 30%
Kenya: TV 43% Digital 33%
12%
12%
Television
43%
Radio
10%
Newspaper
4% Twitter
7%
9%Instagram
2%Other
0%
None of the
above
1%Facebook
11%
11%
Television
38%
Radio
12%
Newspaper
9%
5%
9%
3%
Other
1%
None of the
above
1%
Trust and source of information/news
❑The most trusted sources of information/news were: • Researcher/scientist – 57.3%
• Physician – 52.6%
• Farmers – 33%
• Government – 33%
• International media – 31.8%
❑The least trusted sources of information/news were: • Government – 26.3%
• Butchers – 19.3%
• Social media – 18.9%
• Local retailers – 18.8%
• Hotels/restaurants – 15.5%
57.3% Researcher/scientist
26.3% Government
CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions: quality assurance
Healthy meals that are chemical free
Pay more for humanely reared animals and animal products
Buy more meat and products if it is safer
Buy more locally produced meat/products if animals were raised in an environmentally sustainable way
Pay more if they are assured that the meat is free of antibiotics.
Consumers want:
Animal welfare is inextricably linked with animal health, and human health and welfare.
Conclusions: Public health
Example: stress and poor welfare in farm animals increases the transmission and virulence of a number of zoonotic diseases. Protecting the welfare of farm animals can therefore be an
important factor in decreasing the spread of disease.
• A large percentage of consumers get their information from television and radio
• Continue sensitization on television and radio and proper packaging of digital content to share through the social and print media.
Conclusions: sensitization
This will target and reach the largest proportion of audience to spur behavior change.
Rank fast food restaurants and supermarkets on animal welfare practices
Higher animal welfare production systems are characterized by:
• low antibiotic usage
• Environmentally friendly
Next year
![Red Meat Study e[1]](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/577d26ee1a28ab4e1ea291e9/red-meat-study-e1.jpg)
