Research on World Agricultural Economy

Ethical Appetite: The Market Dynamics of Price Premiums for Animal Welfare-Friendly Food Products

Voraprapa Nakavachara

Faculty of Economics, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand

Chanon Thongtai

Faculty of Economics, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand

Thanarat Chalidabhongse

Department of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand

Chanathip Pharino

Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36956/rwae.v7i3.2871

Received: 27 October 2025 | Revised: 29 December 2025 | Accepted: 12 January 2026 | Published Online: 3 August 2026

---

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between animal welfare standards labeled on packages and retail pricing using real-world data from a Swiss supermarket. This data collection, before the mandatory animal-based food labeling, helps provide a clean baseline that represents market prices unaffected by regulatory requirements by the Swiss government, which allows a genuine assessment of the observed existing price premiums. The front-of-package animal welfare scores range from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest; the scores are available in categories of products where animal welfare is a relevant factor: Dairy & Eggs, Meat & Fish. On average, a one-point increase in the animal welfare score corresponds to a 16.0% price increase, with the effect most pronounced in Dairy & Eggs (24.2%) compared to Meat & Fish (14.7%). This premium likely reflects both consumer willingness to pay for an ethically aligned sustainable agri-food system and producer cost burdens associated with higher welfare standards. Broader cultural and educational contexts in Switzerland may further reinforce societal acceptance of animal welfare practices. Our findings contribute to the understanding of how market, production, and cultural factors interact, offering insight into how ethical attributes are reflected in retail food pricing, as well as sustainable development goals (SDGs).

Keywords: Animal Welfare; Price Premium; Ethical Consumption

---

References

[1] Martinez, J., von Nolting, C., 2023. Review: “Animal welfare”—A European concept. animal. 17, 100839. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2023.100839

[2] Cembalo, L., Caracciolo, F., Lombardi, A., et al., 2016. Determinants of Individual Attitudes toward Animal Welfare-Friendly Food Products. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 29(2), 237–254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9598-z

[3] Carenzi, C., Verga, M., 2009. Animal welfare: Review of the scientific concept and definition. Italian Journal of Animal Science. 8(sup1), 21–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2009.s1.21

[4] Ohl, F., van der Staay, F.J., 2012. Animal welfare: At the interface between science and society. The Veterinary Journal. 192(1), 13–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.05.019

[5] Zander, K., Hamm, U., 2010. Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of organic food. Food Quality and Preference. 21(5), 495–503. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.01.006

[6] Cornish, A.R., Briley, D., Wilson, B.J., et al., 2020. The price of good welfare: Does informing consumers about what on-package labels mean for animal welfare influence their purchase intentions? Appetite. 148, 104577. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104577

[7] Sørensen, J., Rousing, T., Møller, S., et al., 2007. On-farm welfare assessment systems: What are the recording costs? Animal Welfare. 16(2), 237–239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600031420

[8] Waiblinger, S., 2009. Animal Welfare and Housing. In: Smulders, F.J.M., Algers, B. (Eds.). Welfare of Production Animals: Assessment and Management of Risks. Brill: London, UK. pp. 79–111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3920/9789086866908_006

[9] Harrison, M.E., O’Driscoll, K., O’Connell, N.E., et al., 2025. An examination of the factors that influence consumer intention to purchase higher welfare meat and milk. Animal Frontiers. 15(2), 53–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfaf007

[10] Gerritsen, V., Konyo, S., Bolliger, G., 2024. Developments in Swiss Animal Law—Status Quo, Achievements and Demands for the Future. In: Dalpane, F., Baideldinova, M. (Eds.). Animal Law Worldwide. T.M.C. Asser Press: The Hague, Netherlands. pp. 433–452. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-643-7_23

[11] Phan-Huy, S.A., Fawaz, R.B., 2003. Swiss Market for Meat from Animal-Friendly Production—Responses of Public and Private Actors in Switzerland. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 16(2), 119–136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022992200547

[12] Federal Council News Service Bund, 2025. New Declaration Requirements for Animal Foods Create Transparency for Consumers. Swiss Federal Chancellery: Bern, Switzerland. Available from: https://www.news.admin.ch/de/newnsb/kBa7CcbvEMu-Nr-0oXvh4 (in German)

[13] Kohsaka, Y., Mardyla, G., Takenaka, S., et al., 2017. Disposition Effect and Diminishing Sensitivity: An Analysis Based on a Simulated Experimental Stock Market. Journal of Behavioral Finance. 18(2), 189–201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15427560.2017.1308941

[14] Techa-Erawan, T., Ratisukpimol, W., Bunditsakulchai, P., 2024. The Analysis of Consumer Preference on EV Adoption Barriers and Policy Stimulations in Thailand. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy. 14(4), 160–168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.15987

[15] Shafer, W., 1990. Transitivity. In: Eatwell, J., Milgate, M., Newman, P. (Eds.). Utility and Probability. Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK. pp. 276–279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20568-4_37

[16] Guadalupe-Lanas, J., Cruz-Cárdenas, J., Artola-Jarrín, V., et al., 2020. Empirical evidence for intransitivity in consumer preferences. Heliyon. 6(3), e03459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03459

[17] Miranda-de La Lama, G.C., Estévez-Moreno, L.X., Villarroel, M., et al., 2019. Consumer Attitudes toward Animal Welfare-Friendly Products and Willingness to Pay: Exploration of Mexican Market Segments. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 22(1), 13–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2018.1456925

[18] Bengtsson, B., Greko, C., 2014. Antibiotic resistance—Consequences for animal health, welfare, and food production. Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences. 119(2), 96–102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/03009734.2014.901445

[19] Kan, C.J., Jager, L.P., Grommers, F.J., 1998. Feed Additives: Do They Add to Animal Welfare? An Evaluation. Animal Welfare. 7(4), 397–414. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600020947

[20] VanDuinen, R.F., Adams, J.F., Sergin, S., et al., 2024. Changes in the Fatty Acid and Antioxidant Profile of Eggs and Forage across the Grazing Season in a Southern Ohio-Based Pasture-Raising System for Layer Hens. Current Developments in Nutrition. 8, 102308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cdnut.2024.102308

[21] Javed, A., Imran, M., Saad Hashmi, M., et al., 2025. Chicken egg: A comprehensive overview regarding feed sources and human health aspects. World’s Poultry Science Journal. 81(1), 169–204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2024.2439474

[22] Daley, C.A., Abbott, A., Doyle, P.S., et al., 2010. A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef. Nutrition Journal. 9(1), 10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2891-9-10

[23] Choe, J., 2018. Pre-slaughter stress, animal welfare, and its implication on meat quality. Korean Journal of Agricultural Science. 45(1), 58–65.

[24] Rey-Salgueiro, L., Martinez-Carballo, E., Fajardo, P., et al., 2018. Meat quality in relation to swine well-being after transport and during lairage at the slaughterhouse. Meat Science. 142, 38–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.005

[25] Araya, S., Elberg, A., Noton, C., et al., 2022. Identifying Food Labeling Effects on Consumer Behavior. Marketing Science. 41(5), 982–1003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2022.1356

[26] Pachali, M.J., Kotschedoff, M.J.W., van Lin, A., et al., 2023. How Do Nutritional Warning Labels Affect Prices? Journal of Marketing Research. 60(1), 92–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437221105014

[27] Loureiro, M.L., Umberger, W.J., 2003. Estimating consumer willingness to pay for country-of-origin labeling. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 28, 287–301. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40987187

[28] Napolitano, F., Girolami, A., Braghieri, A., 2010. Consumer liking and willingness to pay for high welfare animal-based products. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 21(11), 537–543. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2010.07.012

[29] Toma, L., Stott, A.W., Revoredo-Giha, C., et al., 2012. Consumers and animal welfare. A comparison between European Union countries. Appetite. 58(2), 597–607. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.11.015

[30] Gorton, M., Yeh, C.-H., Chatzopoulou, E., et al., 2023. Consumers’ willingness to pay for an animal welfare food label. Ecological Economics. 209, 107852. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107852

[31] Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C.R., 2021. Nudge: The Final Edition. Penguin Books: London, UK.

[32] van der Vliet, N., Stuber, J.M., Raghoebar, S., et al., 2024. Nudging plant-based alternatives to meat and dairy in a real-life online supermarket: A randomized controlled trial. Appetite. 196, 107278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107278

[33] Weingarten, N., Bach, L., Roosen, J., et al., 2024. Every step you take: Nudging animal welfare product purchases in a virtual supermarket. Appetite. 197, 107316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107316

[34] Lusk, J.L., 2011. The market for animal welfare. Agriculture and Human Values. 28(4), 561–575. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-011-9318-x

[35] Luy, J., Grune, B., 2004. Activities in German-speaking Countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) to Transform School Education with the Objective of Increasing Student Awareness of Animal Welfare Issues. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals. 32(1_suppl), 491–494. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/026119290403201s78

[36] Horgan, R., Gavinelli, A., 2006. The expanding role of animal welfare within EU legislation and beyond. Livestock Science. 103(3), 303–307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.019

[37] Ingenbleek, P.T.M., Immink, V.M., Spoolder, H.A.M., et al., 2012. EU animal welfare policy: Developing a comprehensive policy framework. Food Policy. 37(6), 690–699. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.001

[38] Evans, E., 2010. Constitutional Inclusion of Animal Rights in Germany and Switzerland: How Did Animal Protection Become an Issue of National Importance? Society & Animals. 18(3), 231–250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853010X510762

[39] Toma, L., McVittie, A., Hubbard, C., et al., 2011. A Structural Equation Model of the Factors Influencing British Consumers’ Behaviour toward Animal Welfare. Journal of Food Products Marketing. 17(2–3), 261–278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2011.548748

[40] Gaiato, G., Ardigó, C.M., Limberger, P.F., 2023. Animal Welfare Certification Seal and the Effect on Brand Equity: Consumer Perspective of Chicken Commodity. Journal of Food Products Marketing. 29(6), 197–218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2023.2227583

[41] De Wasch, K., Poelmans, S., Verslycke, T., et al., 2002. Alternative to vertebrate animal experiments in the study of metabolism of illegal growth promotors and veterinary drugs. Analytica Chimica Acta. 473(1–2), 59–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(02)00933-9

[42] Parker, C., Scrinis, G., 2014. Out of the cage and into the barn: Supermarket power food system governance and the regulation of free range eggs. Griffith Law Review. 23(2), 318–347. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2014.980879

[43] Vukina, T., Nestic, D., 2020. Paying for animal welfare? A hedonic analysis of egg prices. Agribusiness. 36(4), 613–630. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21658

[44] Hansson, H., Lagerkvist, C.J., 2015. Identifying use and non-use values of animal welfare: Evidence from Swedish dairy agriculture. Food Policy. 50, 35–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.10.012

[45] Kearns, R., Hair, N., 2008. Consumer Perceptions of Business-to-Consumer Relationships in Electronic Retail Environments: A Means–End Chain Approach. Journal of Relationship Marketing. 7(1), 5–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15332660802067841

[46] De Pelsmacker, P., Janssens, W., Sterckx, E., et al., 2005. Consumer preferences for the marketing of ethically labelled coffee. International Marketing Review. 22(5), 512–530. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330510624363

[47] Heerwagen, L.R., Mørkbak, M.R., Denver, S., et al., 2015. The Role of Quality Labels in Market-Driven Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 28(1), 67–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9521-z

[48] Ufer, D., Ortega, D.L., Wolf, C.A., 2022. Information and consumer demand for milk attributes: Are redundant labels an effective marketing strategy? Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. 44(2), 960–981. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13155

[49] Hosany, S., Martin, D., 2012. Self-image congruence in consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research. 65(5), 685–691. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.03.015

[50] Dentoni, D., Tonsor, G., Calantone, R., et al., 2011. “Animal Welfare” Practices along the Food Chain: How Does Negative and Positive Information Affect Consumers? Journal of Food Products Marketing. 17(2–3), 279–302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2011.548720

[51] Yue, M., Jin, S., Tindale, S., et al., 2024. Segmenting consumers of meat and dairy products from five European countries: Implications for promoting sustainable food choices. Sustainable Production and Consumption. 47, 47–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.03.034

[52] McClements, D.J., 2024. Novel animal product substitutes: A new category of plant‐based alternatives to meat, seafood, egg, and dairy products. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. 23(3), e313330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.13330

[53] Ammann, J., Mack, G., El Benni, N., et al., 2024. Consumers across five European countries prioritise animal welfare above environmental sustainability when buying meat and dairy products. Food Quality and Preference. 117, 105179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105179

[54] Dhont, K., Ioannidou, M., 2024. Health, environmental, and animal rights motives among omnivores, vegetarians, and vegans and the associations with meat, dairy, and egg commitment. Food Quality and Preference. 118, 105196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105196