A Multidisciplinary View on Animal Welfare and Alternative Protein: Convergences and Perspectives from Professionals in Agricultural, Food, and Veterinary Sciences

Abstract

This study investigated the perceptions of animal welfare and the consumption of alternative protein sources among future professionals in agronomy, food science, and veterinary medicine. A sample of 769 participants from three faculties [ESALQ ("Luiz de Queiroz" College of Agriculture), FZEA (School of Animal Science and Food Engineering), and FMVZ (School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science)] of the University of São Paulo was used. These faculties have different teaching focuses: agronomy, food and animal production, and veterinary, respectively. A relationship between the perception of animal welfare and alternative sources of protein based on the participants' educational background was verified, specifically: (i) participants from the FZEA (food science) and FMVZ (veterinary) units would be interested in consuming farmed meat and expressed interest in trying it; (ii) students from the ESALQ (agronomy) have a low level of knowledge about animal welfare and are not very interested in knowing how animals are reared, and few participants attribute the presence of the health inspection seal as influencing their purchasing intention; (iii) participants, regardless of their academic background, did not express an intention to reduce their red meat consumption; (iv) the ESALQ was the campus which showed the most skepticism about animal sentience; (v) most participants from the FMVZ and FZEA reported being willing to pay 4-5% more for products that guarantee animal welfare. The findings suggest that the academic context influences individuals' perceptions and food choices, highlighting the need for educational strategies that foster a greater awareness of animal welfare, encourage the adoption of more sustainable practices, and promote the acceptance of alternative protein sources within the agri-food sector.

Keywords: animal-based products; cell-based meat; consumer behavior; edible insects.

Figure 1

Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) performed with Q1 to Q11 questions, at the three USP campuses. The details of the questions are shown in Table 3.

Figure 2

Consumption habits of animal products from participants’ responses.

Figure 3

Most important reasons for purchasing animal products that respect animal welfare in the participants’ opinions.

Figure 4

Percentage of participants that would pay for products that ensure animal welfare.

Figure 5

Animal sensory approach: participants’ opinions on what animals feel.

Figure 6

Responsibility to ensure animal welfare.