How much do Europeans care about fish welfare? (An analysis of relevant surveys)

post by saulius · 2020-06-22T15:08:05.604Z · score: 56 (16 votes) · EA · GW · 4 comments

Contents

  Summary
  Surveys
    2018 fish welfare survey
    Eurobarometer surveys (2005-2006)
    Frewer et al. (2005)
    Finland fish survey (2010)
    2019 BBC survey
    Ellingsen et al. (2015)
    Tentative conclusions
  Other indications that fish welfare could be tractable
  Appendix: surveys with a non-representative or unclear sample
  References
None
4 comments

Summary

Animal advocates have achieved a lot of change for chickens. However, some advocates are concerned that the same approach could not be used to achieve similar changes for fish because people care about fish welfare much less than about chicken welfare. In this article I analyze whether this intuition holds up to scrutiny when it comes to Europe. Here is what I found:

Overall, this evidence made me think that the general public cares about fish welfare more than I previously thought.

Surveys

By now animal advocates know well how much the public can get behind welfare reforms for chicken. Hence, I use people’s answers to questions about chickens as a benchmark. Where data for chickens is unavailable, I compare answers about fish and pigs.

2018 fish welfare survey

The most comprehensive survey on attitudes towards fish welfare I’ve seen is the 2018 fish welfare survey. The figures in the link are a bit difficult to navigate so I made a full survey summary here. The survey sample was 9,047 adults in nine European countries: UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Sweden, The Netherlands, and Czech Republic (at least 1,000 respondents in each country). Data were weighted to be representative of all adults in these countries aged 18+ by age, gender, and region. The survey was conducted online. Below I present only questions that are relevant for my point but I encourage interested readers to read the full survey summary.

graph

Interpreting these results is not straightforward for multiple reasons:

Nevertheless, it’s surprising that answers for salmon are higher than for chickens and pigs. Perhaps it’s because respondents were thinking about the protection of wild salmon from fishers and dams which they might care about for environmental reasons rather than the welfare farmed salmon. It’s also possible that people think that chickens and pigs already have enough protection. I guess that answers for goldfish are lower because people think that pet fish don't experience much suffering (Rucinque et al. (2017) results suggest that people in South America think so), or because of the myth that goldfish have a memory span of only three seconds.

graph

These results seem very encouraging for fish advocates. However, note that this question was preceded by multiple questions about fish welfare. I think this might help explain why 11% claimed that it should be protected to a greater extent than other food animals, which is something they might disagree with on contemplation. Another possible explanation is that some people want to protect fish more because some of the fish we eat are wild fish and people associate the welfare of wild fish with some environmental issues. Some of the result could be explained by the so-called lizardman’s constant.

graph

Answers to this question can be compared with a similar question in the 2019 meat chicken survey. For comparison, in the table and graph below I only use data for countries that were surveyed in both surveys: UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland. The sample size for all questions in the table below is about 6,000 (~1,000 for each country in each survey).

graph Here are the same results in a table (in case it's difficult to read the graph): table

We can see that the results are surprisingly similar, although people seem to be more uncertain about whether fish can feel pain. Note that questions 1a and 1b are a bit less comparable than others because 1b provided a definition. Also, the preceding question in the fish survey assumed that fish are sentient which could have impacted the results.

Eurobarometer surveys (2005-2006)

Eurobarometer (2005) is a survey in 25 EU member states which had 24,708 respondents in total. One of the questions was “In your opinion, from the following list, for which three farm animals should the current level of welfare/protection be improved the most?” Eurobarometer (2007) asked the same question in Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Turkey (~1,000 respondents in each country). In both surveys respondents could select up to three answers. The results from the question in both surveys are below:

table

The proportion of people who selected farmed fish ranged from 2% in Germany to 36% in Greece. In general, the support for fish welfare seems lower than in the 2018 Fish welfare survey analyzed above. I think that the most likely reason is that Eurobarometer surveys specifically asked about farmed fish while in the 2018 Fish welfare survey people may have been thinking about wild fish. It’s also possible that the concern for fish has increased between 2005 and 2018, or that people care about fish but think that the welfare of other animals is more important.

Similarly to the Q5 in the 2018 Fish welfare survey, answers to this question depend on the perception of how bad the current conditions are, and I don’t expect the average person to have much knowledge about the conditions of each farmed animal. It’s possible that a highly publicized undercover investigation or campaign could lead to a significant increase in the percentage of people who prioritized farmed fish when asked questions like that. Similarly, I think that broilers and laying hens were the most popular answers in this survey because there may have been more discussion about their welfare, rather than because people care about chickens more than about pigs, cows, and other animals.

Frewer et al. (2005)

Frewer et al. (2005) surveyed 1,000 representative Dutch consumers about their attitudes to either pig or fish husbandry (500 respondents each). All data were collected on six-point scales, anchored from ‘‘disagree completely’’ (1) to ‘‘agree completely’’ (6).

When asked if they agree that animal welfare oriented production is important, the mean answer for respondents who were asked about pigs was 4.87, while for respondents who were asked about farmed fish it was 4.64. The difference is statistically significant (p=0.001) but small (the effect size is 0.19).

Respondents believed that they were more knowledgeable about the welfare of pigs (mean score = 3.35) compared to fish (mean score = 2.7). Note that scores were rather low for both animals.

Consumers were also asked about the extent to which they agree or disagree that animals experience some emotions. You can see the results in the table below:

table

We can see that people who answered the question thought that fish are less likely to experience pain, boredom, fear, and stress, but a little bit more likely to experience pleasure. However, these are only scores of respondents who gave an answer other than “I don’t know”. For all five emotions, a much higher percentage of respondents chose the answer “I don’t know” for fish (more than 30% for each emotion).

Respondents were also asked about the extent to which they experience affective responses to animal welfare issues. See the results below.

table

Again, we can see that people care more about pigs than fish but that the difference is not that big. However, note that people may feel guilty or responsible because of the environmental effects of pig or fish production, not just because of animal welfare issues.

While the results of this survey are interesting, it’s important to remember it is more than fifteen years old.

Finland fish survey (2010)

Kupsala et al. (2013) and Kupsala et al. (2016) describe a 2010 postal survey of 1,824 adults in Finland. The survey sample had only small differences (0 − 6%) to the general population in terms of gender, age, place of residence, living area, and education. Hence, they claim that the sample can be regarded as representative of Finland’s population.

48% of respondents thought that the welfare level of farmed fish is very good or fairly good. Only 13% thought that it is fairly poor or very poor. Respondents thought that farmed fish welfare is better than the welfare of meat chickens, egg-laying hens, turkeys, and pigs, but worse than beef cattle, sheep, cows, and reindeer.

Respondents were also asked about which mental abilities they think various animals have. See the results below.

table

Table 4 in Kupsala et al. (2013) provides some more values for salmon and chicken from the same survey:

table

As you can see in the tables above, ratings for salmon were much lower than for chicken and other animals. This somewhat contradicts the findings in the surveys analyzed above. I’m not quite sure how to explain it. We can also see that a much higher percentage of respondents did not answer questions about salmon and shrimp, showing that people are more uncertain about the mental abilities of these animals. I’m uncertain how many of these attributes people need to think that fish have in order to care about them morally.

2019 BBC survey

The 2019 BBC survey had a sample of 3,655 UK respondents aged 16+. Data were weighted to be representative of all UK adults aged 16+ by age, gender, region, ethnicity, and religion. The question below was one of many questions on various topics.

table

We can see that answers for fish are quite similar to answers for other animals.

Ellingsen et al. (2015)

Ellingsen et al. (2015) describe a survey of 2,147 adults in Norway. Amongst other things, people had to rate their agreement to statements below on a six-point scale, anchored from ‘‘disagree completely’’ (1) to ‘‘agree completely’’ (6). See the mean scores below.

table

The question is a bit unusual and hence it’s difficult to make conclusions. Nevertheless, it’s interesting to see that fish are not that far behind other animals. E.g., the effect size compared to chickens is only 0.12.

Tentative conclusions

Analyzed surveys weakly suggest that getting the European public behind fish welfare campaigns might not be that much more difficult than getting them behind welfare campaigns for chickens or pigs. However, the results could be interpreted in various ways and could have been affected by various biases. Furthermore, these surveys don’t tell us whether there is a critical mass of people who care about fish welfare deeply, which could be critical for the success of welfare reforms.

Even if people believe that fish can suffer, it might be more difficult to convince them that they do suffer under farm conditions and that suggested reforms would help fish. Also, imagery of low welfare fish farms may not trigger the same emotional response that footage of land animal farms does because fish might be more difficult to empathize with and don’t make any sounds comprehensible to humans. However, I don’t know if very cruel imagery is necessary to get the public behind welfare reforms. It may even prevent some people from engaging with the topic which might be why some animal charities seem to already be using it less.

Finally, note that all the surveys analyzed above were conducted in Europe. I chose to write about Europe simply because most of the interesting surveys I saw on the subject were about this continent. Faunalytics is working on a project that should show what is the situation in the U.S.

Other indications that fish welfare could be tractable

There have already been successful campaigns to stop the sale of live fish in some supermarkets in Poland and Lithuania. The results of Eurobarometer (2016) and Eurobarometer (2007) suggest that people in most European countries on average care about animal welfare more than people in Lithuania and Poland, which makes these victories even more encouraging. One of the people who worked on these campaigns said that from their experience, the general public sees fish in pretty much the same way they see other animals.

Also, note that some companies already make fish welfare claims. For example, Waitrose and Sainsbury’s claim that farmed fish they sell did not experience fin clipping, were stunned before their slaughter, and were kept at stocking densities that are below a specified maximum. All of these are criteria in the BBFAW benchmark, so it’s possible that they were encouraged by BBFAW to make these statements. This shows that fish welfare is already on the agenda of some food companies to some degree. Even if it’s just humane washing, it’s encouraging that grocers feel a need to humane wash about fish welfare.

Another way to see what attitudes towards fish are is to look at existing laws and regulations. In Norway and Sweden, it is already mandatory to stun farmed fish before slaughter (Röcklinsberg (2014), Norway. Animal Welfare Act 2009). In 2009, the EU Commission acknowledged that “there is now sufficient scientific evidence indicating that fish are sentient beings and that they are subject to pain and suffering”. However, Giménez-Candela et al. (2020) shows that regulations for fish are insufficient, not well thought out, underspecified, and not properly enforced. Nevertheless, it’s encouraging that the foot is already in the door.

Appendix: surveys with a non-representative or unclear sample

Below I present some surveys that I think are less interesting or relevant than surveys I presented in the main article.

Respondents to The European Commission (2005) think that farmed fish conditions are better than conditions for meat chickens, laying hens, pigs, and some other animals. When asked if more needs to be done to improve the current level of welfare/ protection of various farmed animals farmed within the EU, 68% of respondents answered “yes” for farmed fish, which was the lowest result out of fifteen groups of animals included in the survey. Furthermore, 15% of respondents chose “I don’t know”, more than for any other animal group. However, very little can be inferred from this survey because it seems that it did not use a representative sample, as 66.4% of respondents were female, and the survey strongly overrepresented certain countries.

Bradley et al. (2020) asked 419 UK respondents how much they agree or disagree with various animals being used for various purposes. All data were collected on five-point scales, where 1 is “Strongly Agree” and 5 is “Strongly Disagree”. In the table below you can see mean scores for some of the species.

table

As you can see, scores for carp, chicken, and pig are very similar. However, the survey used snowball sampling which leads to an unrepresentative sample. Hence, very limited conclusions can be drawn from this survey.

Herzog and Galvin (1997) surveyed 57 males and 112 females taking social psychology classes at the University of Tennessee in the spring of 1990 and found that goldfish was ranked lower than most other animals in terms of sentience and cognition. Note that ratings for goldfish could have been influenced by a common misconception that their memory span is just three seconds long. A big gap between goldfish and salmon in Q5 in the 2018 fish welfare survey suggests that ratings for a different fish species may have been higher.

Herzog et al. (2001) cite Doyle, Dane, and Bernbach, Inc. (1983) which asked Americans how much they are concerned about the welfare of various animals. 64% of respondents expressed concern for fish welfare. For comparison, 89% expressed concern for dogs, 76% for birds, 71% for cats, 70% for farm animals, 67% for rabbits, and 34% for hamsters/guinea pigs/mice. I was unable to find the original source and Herzog et al. (2001) doesn’t mention what was the sample

Rucinque et al. (2017) analyzes the perception of fish sentience, welfare and humane slaughter by highly educated citizens of Bogotá, Colombia and Curitiba, Brazil. Most of the respondents considered fish to be sentient and thought that they suffer in some scenarios. However, the survey used a convenience sample, hence it is not very informative.

References

Bradley, A., Mennie, N., Bibby, P. A., & Cassaday, H. J. (2020). Some animals are more equal than others: Validation of a new scale to measure how attitudes to animals depend on species and human purpose of use. PloS one, 15(1), e0227948.

Doyle, Dane, and Bernbach Inc. 1983. America’s binding relationship with the animal kingdom. Soundings 12: 9–10.

Ellingsen, K., Grimsrud, K., Nielsen, H. M., Mejdell, C., Olesen, I., Honkanen, P., ... & Sandøe, P. (2015). Who cares about fish welfare?. British food journal.

Eurobarometer (2005). Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. Special Eurobarometer, 229, 45-6.

Eurobarometer (2007). Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals: Wave 2. Eurobarometer (Ed.), Special Eurobarometer, 229(2), 56.

Frewer, L. J., Kole, A., Kroon, S. M. A. V. de, & Lauwere, C. de. (2005). Consumer Attitudes Towards the Development of Animal-Friendly Husbandry Systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18(4), 345–367. doi:10.1007/s10806-005-1489-2

Giménez-Candela, T., Saraiva, J. L., & Bauer, H. (2020). The legal protection of farmed fish in Europe: analysing the range of EU legislation and the impact of international animal welfare standards for the fishes in European aquaculture. In dA Derecho Animal: Forum of Animal Law Studies (Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 0065-118).

Herzog, H. A., Galvin, S. (1997). Common sense and the mental lives of animals: An empirical approach.

Herzog, H., Rowan, A. N., & Kossow, D. (2001). Social attitudes and animals.

Kupsala, S., Jokinen, P., & Vinnari, M. (2013). Who cares about farmed fish? Citizen perceptions of the welfare and the mental abilities of fish. Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics, 26(1), 119-135.

Kupsala, S., Vinnari, M., Jokinen, P., & Räsänen, P. (2016). Public perceptions of mental capacities of nonhuman animals: Finnish population survey. Society & Animals, 24(5), 445-466.

Röcklinsberg H. Fish Consumption: Choices in the Intersection of Public Concern, Fish Welfare, Food Security, Human Health and Climate Change. J Agr Environ Ethic. 2015;28: 533–551.

Rucinque, D. S., Souza, A. P. O., & Molento, C. F. M. (2017). Perception of fish sentience, welfare and humane slaughter by highly educated citizens of Bogotá, Colombia and Curitiba, Brazil. PloS one, 12(1), e0168197.

The European Commission. (2005). Response statistics for Community action plan on animal welfare and protection: welfare and protection of farmed animals

This essay is a project of Rethink Priorities. It was written by Saulius Šimčikas. Thanks to David Moss, Jason Schukraft, Neil Dullaghan, and Peter Hurford for reviewing drafts of this post and making valuable comments.

Rethink Priorities Logo

4 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Jakub Stencel · 2020-06-25T09:53:10.863Z · score: 18 (6 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Thanks Saulius for this, as always a spectacular job, like always from Rethink Priorities.

Few questions or comments.

  1. Just like you hinted it looks like people asked about the welfare of fish (or any welfare issue) are possibly not thinking about welfare itself, but trying to use some broad mental model to guess the correct answer that is aligned with their self-identity. It looks like "Salmon" being so high may correspond to the environmental topics. I would be interested in seeing how much people understand the difference between "wild" and "farmed" in general. My intuition is it may be quite blurry.

  2. Have you ever wondered to check for any effects on the consumption of certain animal products in the country and the answers on surveys? I wonder whether people may respond they care for fish welfare if the country's consumption of fish is high. Maybe they associate welfare with a higher standard of the food they eat and provide for their families. I'm personally not thinking it's likely, but reading your post made me wonder about such a link.

  3. I like your point about humane washing. I think it should be more emphasized how a good sign it is.

  4. I'm personally quite unsure how much a) we can inference about public opinion caring morally about fish, b) we can use it as a good indicator of whether some types of campaigns will be successful.

a) To elaborate there is a difference between:

  • being against cage eggs (80% in 2016),
  • caring or being in favor of improving the welfare of animals (72% in 2016),
  • being in favor of commitments to resign from selling certain low-welfare products (41% in 2016).

My intuition is that people will be more in support of abolishing cage-egg production than other types of improvements, and, simplifying, it's not necessarily related to how much they care for chickens.

Being against cage-egg is essential for some of the campaigns and it doesn't translate directly to increased moral consideration for hens. The more popular this topic the more it is a reflex to be against it than some careful consideration. Right now, cage eggs after years of investigations, work with media, etc. are linked in public discourse to everything: welfare, health implications, environment, the taste, biohazard, etc. so basically it has label "BAD" and the social norm is to be instinctively against it. The stronger the norm the more it is out of control of activists. I think this is a quite common phenomenon, but I concluded it may be worth pointing out that we don't talk only about support for animal welfare here, not to mention moral status.

b) We survey attitudes regularly and they are informative and important, but it's just a piece of the puzzle. Historically (for over 10 years) it was hard to pressure for fish welfare commitments and support still isn't that high (45% of Poles quite strongly against it). Recently advocates managed to secure them from the biggest retailers. This is because of various factors aligning (more on this below).

The results of Eurobarometer (2016) and Eurobarometer (2007) suggest that people in most European countries on average care about animal welfare more than people in Lithuania and Poland

While this is a good point, what matters for campaign wins is hard to measure, to name some factors:

  • what is the economic state of the country,
  • what is the perceived role of the industry for the government (import/export, unique position, the electorate, etc.)
  • is the topic present in society for a longer period,
  • is the topic linked to political affiliation,
  • is the topic linked to some customs,
  • how much change affects people behavior (is product disappearing, increases costs or the effort),
  • who are the spokespeople in the society on the issue,
  • who are the decisionmakers and what stakes do they have,
  • what is the state of industry connected to the issue,
  • how informed and organized the industry and their lobby is,
  • historical and cultural context,
  • perceived support in society by decision-makers,
  • is there a link to technology,
  • connection to other industries,
  • what is the call to action,
  • etc.

I can't speak of Lithuania that well (I assume you know better :P), but to put Poland as an example the protests for better fish protection were happening at least 11 years ago, there were quite loud campaigns about it since 2010, conservative politicians were advocating for stronger protection of fish, celebrities were singing sometimes cringy songs, people would buy and release carps during Christmas and consumption of fish is linked both to atheistic communist totalitarian government and Catholic Church? This is all messy and cannot be ignored in using Poland as an example.

Public support is a tricky piece of the puzzle and we need to be careful interpreting or using it. It’s often instrumental, but not always. And if done wrong or focused on too much wrong, it may backfire or deplete resources better spent elsewhere. Interventions are employed by the activists always in the context. Activists should understand what to use when and form some robust theory of change about it, preferably work with other groups employing diverse approaches. And watch out for overconfidence.

Of course, your work is super important for the animal advocacy movement. I just wanted to emphasize challenges in scrutinizing the view of fish welfare work and to shed some light on how activists think of public support. Hopefully it’s helpful to you.

All that said, I'm quite optimistic about potential wins and progress in fish welfare (I also agree with the comment there on perception of fish). I think there is a lot to be done, but I'm not a campaigner, so maybe it's just Dunning–Kruger effect.

comment by saulius · 2020-06-26T12:58:48.316Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Thanks for this comment, it's very useful. I agree that there are many other factors that determine whether campaign is successful, I just chose to analyze one of them because I've heard people bringing it up and things they were saying disagreed with these survey results. I didn't realize that there was this much effort behind wins for fish in Poland. My impression is that in Lithuania it didn't require nearly as much effort but I don't really know.

comment by David_Moss · 2020-06-22T16:03:21.885Z · score: 15 (8 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

It seems like it would be valuable for advocates to better understand what level of support is necessary to undergird changes (whether through legislative efforts or through corporate campaigns/consumer pressure). Much progress seems to have been made on chickens, as you note, with only ~77% of people believing their welfare should at least "probably" be better protected. But it seems like we don't know what level of support is required, or even really how such support causally influences progress. The influence of such support seems like it may well be mediated by (decision-makers') perceptions of support, which is probably much vaguer.

comment by Norawa · 2020-07-03T09:26:29.807Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

This article https://issuu.com/eurogroupforanimals/docs/efa-fish-welfare-report-screen is also quite interesting to read