Value orientations in the green movement

There is a close association between concern for animals and concern for the planet. This link exists at practical and the more radical levels. For example, Peek et al. (1996) found that men and women who take a pro-environmental stance were more likely to endorse animal rights.

Genuine attitudes towards the environment are deep-rooted in society, and a brief examination of some of the extremes in attitude can be helpful in understanding the fundamental outlooks. Some of the most extreme views about the environment are held by neopagans. They:

 ● have a romantic attachment to nature

● range from people who practise nature religion to those who place a personal spiritual slant on the green movement

● tend to believe that nature is in some way alive or sacred, and their values for nature are closely connected with archetypal images of ecology and the environment

Modern environmentalists often share the outlook that environmental degradation has stemmed from a society that has faith in science and technology, believes in progress and abundance and adopts a laissez-faire economy. In some individuals this may be blended with a mild form of nature reverence. The exact outlook depends to some extent on the individual’s value orientation .

Gunter and Furnham (1992) described people’s value orientation on environmental issues as being of two types: ‘internal’ or ‘external’. Internally oriented people generally consider that their own destiny is up to themselves. They regard events that happen to them as due to their own efforts and abilities, and they tend to want to control their own lives as much as possible. Externals are more likely to attribute events to chance or to decisions made by other people who are in control, and they are prone to letting fate control their lives. People with an internal value orientation are more likely to play an active part in environmental issues. Homer and Kahle (1988) found that internally oriented people were also more likely to be natural food shoppers. People who rarely purchased natural foods were externally oriented.

The distinction between internals and externals is useful. It helps us recognize whether information that is put forward about animal welfare and environmental issues is likely to be accepted. The externals are more likely to take notice of conciliatory messages, whereas internals are more likely to respond to information that portrays personal or social benefit. Clearly, a single message is not going to appeal to everyone.

It is often said by people in developing countries that worries about environmental quality and animal welfare are a luxury that largely concerns the wealthy nations. In the case of environmental issues that claim was challenged by the Health of the Planet (HOP) Survey (Dunlap and Mertig, 1995). This survey was conducted in 24 nations and it is one of the most comprehensive studies of its kind. It showed that people living in low gross national product per capita (GNP) countries consider other problems besides environmental issues as pressing. Those issues include hunger, homelessness, crime, violence, poor health care, high cost of living and racial/ethnic/religious prejudice or discrimination. Environmental issues are taken more seriously by people in wealthy nations when they are compared with socio-economic issues; the perceived seriousness of environmental problems relative to other problems was positively correlated with GNP ( r = 0.70; Dunlap, 1997). However, the concern for environmental quality in low GNP nations was broad-ranging. The HOP survey showed that poorer nations were more likely to see environmental problems as health threats ( r = − 0.70), but they believed that environmental problems had not affected their health in the past. The old assumption that non-industrialized nations do not worry about environmental protection is incorrect.

Many people claim that they are environmentally and animal welfare aware. However, those concerns do not always translate into buying habits. Marketers have found that consumers, despite their professed beliefs, are still extremely price-sensitive when it comes to buying green and welfare-friendly goods. People with strong pro-environmental beliefs are very focused. They buy particular items that fit their particular beliefs. In comparison, welfare-friendly purchases may depend more on what is available.

Genetic manipulation

The consumer concern that emerged during the late 1990s was food from genetically modified (GM) organisms. There is in fact a range of concerns, and these were identified by Macer (1992) before the issue attracted the media attention that distorted people’s outlooks. Macer conducted two surveys, one in New Zealand and the other in Japan. He found that about half of the New Zealanders (48%) and Japanese (55%) were concerned about the prospect of eating meat from genetically modifiedanimals. There was slightly less concern about consuming GM medicines and vegetables than GM meat. The reasons for the concern about GM meat are summarized in Table 1.8. There was uncertainty about health risks, the ‘unnaturalness’ of the meat and uncertainty about the adequacy of testing for risks. In the case of ‘unnaturalness’, there was the feeling thatGMfoods are against the law of nature, that the original taste of the food will disappear, and that everything will be the same, which in Japanese culture is called ‘shimofuri’. Meat is perceived as a commodity that has variety, and this provides interest in itself. Under quality and purity, some people said that ‘artificial meat is frightening’. There was also a perception that potentially harmful foreign genes might be present. Reference was made to thalidomide and cancer as examples of unforeseen disorders. In general, there was close similarity in the reasons for concern amongst Japanese and New Zealanders. One difference was that New Zealanders were concerned about knowing what they were consuming, unlike the Japanese. This could either reflect differences between the cultures in awareness about the origins of meat, or it could be due to the greater tendency in Japanese culture to focus on benefits, rather than looking for hidden dangers.

Table 1.8. Reasons for concern about eating GM meat products within Japan and New Zealand.

Comments about economic, ethical and political concerns included ‘I don’t trust the safety standard which is decided by the government or industry’, ‘Misuse’, ‘Cannot trust the results of research looking at the effects’, ‘Can we morally accept artificial animals?’ Animal welfare was not an important issue; only 1% of the Japanese and 5% of the New Zealanders who were worried about GM foods thought that it was relevant. This means that the main driver that could prevent or delay the arrival of the hypothetical GM chicken is its image as a less natural product. The public is not likely to buy it if they have a free choice (Frewer et al ., 1996). Lack of acceptance is closely linked to perceived unnaturalness.

Nevertheless, GM meats are getting closer to the marketplace. The first European patent for a genetically modified animal intended for meat production was granted in 2001. It was for an Atlantic salmon that had an additional gene that imparted faster growth. At the same time, the parent company owning the patent applied for approval in the USA to market GM salmon. Tilapia could be next. Transgenic growth hormone (GH) tilapia are almost three times larger than nontransgenic tilapia, partly because of their superior feed conversion efficiency. This provides a strong commercial advantage because non-transgenic tilapia tend to be undersized through competition for feed.