Societal Acceptability of Insect-Based Livestock Feed: A Qualitative Study from Europe

IF 2.2 4区 哲学 Q2 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Ingrid Bunker, Jana Zscheischler
{"title":"Societal Acceptability of Insect-Based Livestock Feed: A Qualitative Study from Europe","authors":"Ingrid Bunker, Jana Zscheischler","doi":"10.1007/s10806-023-09917-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Against the background of high demand for protein-rich feed in the EU and the environmental degradation associated with intensive livestock farming, insect-based feed is discussed as a potential sustainable alternative to conventional feed. However, the establishment of such an innovation depends not only upon technical and economic feasibility, but also on social factors impacting acceptability. The aim of this paper was to determine the acceptability of different social actor groups towards the use of insects as livestock feed, and to gain insights into value-based arguments leading to positive or negative attitudes and perceived benefits and risks. By means of qualitative content analysis, we analysed responses of an EU public consultation process linked to the authorization of insect protein in pig and poultry feed. We found a broad range of value-based arguments that influence the complex judgement process of acceptability that have been neglected in prior quantitative surveys. In particular, our results bring forward more critical voices, such as animal welfare concerns and scepticism that insect-based feed can contribute to a more sustainable livestock system. Based on these findings, we discuss whether insects as feed are a viable contribution to a sustainability-oriented transformation of the agri-food system. We conclude that under certain conditions (when raised on low-value organic side streams such as manure) insect-based livestock feed may contribute to incremental sustainability improvements. Overall, however, the innovation has limitations, not only in terms of regulatory conditions but especially with regard to ethical concerns.","PeriodicalId":50258,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-023-09917-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Against the background of high demand for protein-rich feed in the EU and the environmental degradation associated with intensive livestock farming, insect-based feed is discussed as a potential sustainable alternative to conventional feed. However, the establishment of such an innovation depends not only upon technical and economic feasibility, but also on social factors impacting acceptability. The aim of this paper was to determine the acceptability of different social actor groups towards the use of insects as livestock feed, and to gain insights into value-based arguments leading to positive or negative attitudes and perceived benefits and risks. By means of qualitative content analysis, we analysed responses of an EU public consultation process linked to the authorization of insect protein in pig and poultry feed. We found a broad range of value-based arguments that influence the complex judgement process of acceptability that have been neglected in prior quantitative surveys. In particular, our results bring forward more critical voices, such as animal welfare concerns and scepticism that insect-based feed can contribute to a more sustainable livestock system. Based on these findings, we discuss whether insects as feed are a viable contribution to a sustainability-oriented transformation of the agri-food system. We conclude that under certain conditions (when raised on low-value organic side streams such as manure) insect-based livestock feed may contribute to incremental sustainability improvements. Overall, however, the innovation has limitations, not only in terms of regulatory conditions but especially with regard to ethical concerns.

Abstract Image

以昆虫为基础的牲畜饲料的社会可接受性:来自欧洲的定性研究
摘要:在欧盟对富含蛋白质饲料的高需求和集约化畜牧业带来的环境退化的背景下,本文讨论了昆虫饲料作为传统饲料的潜在可持续替代品。然而,这种创新的建立不仅取决于技术和经济上的可行性,还取决于影响可接受性的社会因素。本文的目的是确定不同社会行为体群体对使用昆虫作为牲畜饲料的可接受性,并深入了解基于价值的论点,导致积极或消极的态度以及感知的利益和风险。通过定性内容分析,我们分析了与猪和家禽饲料中昆虫蛋白授权相关的欧盟公众咨询过程的反应。我们发现了广泛的基于价值的论点,这些论点影响了在以前的定量调查中被忽视的可接受性的复杂判断过程。特别是,我们的研究结果提出了更多批评的声音,例如动物福利问题和对昆虫饲料能否促进更可持续的牲畜系统的怀疑。基于这些发现,我们讨论了昆虫作为饲料是否对农业食品系统的可持续转型做出了可行的贡献。我们的结论是,在某些条件下(当在低价值有机侧流(如粪肥)中饲养时),以昆虫为基础的牲畜饲料可能有助于逐步提高可持续性。然而,总的来说,这种创新有局限性,不仅在监管条件方面,而且在伦理问题方面尤其如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
5.60%
发文量
19
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics welcomes articles on ethical issues confronting agriculture, food production and environmental concerns. The goal of this journal is to create a forum for discussion of moral issues arising from actual or projected social policies in regard to a wide range of questions. Among these are ethical questions concerning the responsibilities of agricultural producers, the assessment of technological changes affecting farm populations, the utilization of farmland and other resources, the deployment of intensive agriculture, the modification of ecosystems, animal welfare, the professional responsibilities of agrologists, veterinarians, or food scientists, the use of biotechnology, the safety, availability, and affordability of food.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信