4.2. Age Effect
For the first two statements focused on the individual and the national perception of the importance of FAW, we observed a tendency for agreement to increase with age. The last two statements focused on the individual and the national perceptions of the importance of low meat prices; as opposed to better FAW, agreement was more prevalent in younger age groups. In the individual perceptions, there was a slightly increasing tendency for disagreement across ages, with USA and Brazil, especially American males, to have higher slopes. In the national perception, the disagreement lines were flat except for the USA, Brazil, and Russian men, where increased disagreements were observed as age advanced. Low meat prices are, therefore, more important for younger ages, and overall pro-FAW attitudes increase with age.
These results, somehow, come as a surprise. The younger generations have grown up with advancements in animal rights, FAW claims, and legal recognition of animal sentience, and are normally associated with higher pro-animal attitudes [
1,
37] and consumer willingness to pay for better FAW standards [
38]. The economic constraints faced by these younger generations [
39,
40] may have impacted these results. It is well known that younger generations are leading the move away from animal protein [
41]; however, meat consumption is growing in the emerging BRIC economies [
42,
43,
44,
45], and even in Western societies such as the USA [
46] and the OECD countries [
45].
Interviewees in BRIC countries had the worst perception of their other compatriots from an economical point of view, as introduced in the
Section 3. They showed a lower level of disagreement with low meat prices in opposition to higher FAW standards than what they perceived regarding their compatriots. This perception may drive the youth to richer meat diets, as there are several studies relating to perceived health with socio-economic status, showing that people with subjective lower incomes have a worse perception of their subjective health status [
47]. Several studies have also concluded that other demographic variables (income, education) associated with wealth correlate positively with the consumers’ demand for better FAW standards [
48]; and as these variables did not enter this study, there is no means to further comment on an eventual bias. In addition, an important aspect and eventual limitation of this study is that most of the studies reporting a negative association between age and pro-FAW attitudes were conducted in Europe and/or the USA, thus excluding emerging economies. It is exactly in these emerging economies that meat consumption is increasing, as the youth in these countries aim for Western living standards.
4.3. Country Effect
The USA showed relatively high levels of individual pro-FAW attitudes, but were surpassed, however, by the Brazilians and older Chinese. The Americans were between the countries with the worst perception of their fellow countrymen in relation to positive pro-FAW attitudes. The difficulties in passing Federal FAW legislation and the need for the companies to self-impose trading standards demanded by strong pro-FAW movements, as discussed by Mata and colleagues [
11], may contribute to this perspective.
The consumption of meat in the USA is remarkably high in comparison to the other countries in this study (
Table 6). The USA is also the country with the highest GDP per capita of the studied countries. Once most people in the USA feel economically comfortable in relation to food, we could expect a trade-off between FAW and meat price to favour FAW. This is, in fact, true; however, Brazilians and Russians (except the elderly) favour FAW even more. In fact, in the USA, younger men are among the least supportive of high meat prices to favour FAW, being only surpassed by the Chinese. The perception relative to compatriots is definitively very odd, and Americans perceive their compatriots as unsupportive of a trade-off for meat prices favouring FAW.
Our results tally those obtained by Neff and colleagues [
49]; while studying the reduction in meat consumption in the USA, these authors found that two-thirds of the Americans would be willing to do so, but due to price and health reasons only. Environment and FAW were options for a reduction in meat consumption for only 12% of the population. Tonsor and Lusk [
50] reported equivalent results, identifying price as a cause of major concern and animal welfare as a cause of minor concern in meat purchasing. Consumerism in the USA is still finding room for meat consumption expansion. The lobby of meat producers is very strong and exerts influence on the public via TV commercials. Lewis [
51] refers to this influence in a study where he found that individuals more exposed to media content dissociated meat from its animal origin more often and ate more meat. It is predicted that despite the high consumption of meat per capita in the USA, demand will still be rising in the near future [
50].
Brazil was the country in this study with the highest levels of individual pro-FAW attitudes. The perception of the importance of FAW, relative to compatriots, however, did not differentiate from the other countries in the study. In relation to the importance of low meat prices, the pro-FAW attitude also prevailed. The only difference in the latter was that the perception of compatriots’ attitudes was clearly above that of the other countries in this study, while individual perceptions did not differentiate. These results were corroborated by Magalhaes and colleagues [
52], who reported welfare as one of the main confidence attributes for Brazilians when purchasing and consuming beef.
Despite being an emerging economy, Brazil is a nation where meat consumption levels are high (see
Table 6 for comparison). The natural resources, especially farming potential, favour animal production; therefore, meat production has always been accessible. The crucial issues are related to the lack of hygiene in local butchers and free fairs selling uninspected meat, especially to consumers in rural areas with lower levels of education and purchasing power [
53]. In urban areas, consumers tend to have higher levels of education and purchasing power and are also associated with higher levels of ethical concerns at the time of buying meat, which takes place preferably in supermarkets [
53]. Therefore, according to the same authors, in rural areas, the main consumer concern was price, while in urban areas, FAW and forest sustainability were more often the consumers’ choice. The fact that the sample of the Brazilians was based on urban areas may reflect these results. Brazilians have a long tradition of eating meat; however, the consumption per capita has rapidly increased recently and Brazil is a main consumer of beef [
54]. Brazil is the world’s second-largest producer of beef and is the fifth-largest exporter of live cattle, with China being a main destination [
52].
Russia showed a slightly lower attitude towards FAW, especially in older respondents, with India scoring just below. However, the perception of their compatriots’ attitudes towards FAW was completely different. Russians had the most favourable perceived national attitude towards FAW, across all ages. Russians showed a higher level of disagreement with the statement favouring meat prices to the detriment of FAW. It was also the only country where the level of disagreement decreased with age. Therefore, in these findings, the youth behaved differently when compared to the other BRIC countries and the USA. The perception of compatriots’ attitudes also showed prominent levels of disagreement with the statement favouring low meat prices, only overtaken by Brazil. However, the agreement with low meat prices was remarkably high in older men.
The meat-eating patterns in Russia are above average. The consumption of meat and dairy was promoted in the Soviet era and prevails today. Only the economic crises from 1990 to 1995 assisted in a decrease, which quickly reverted thereafter [
55]. The officially recommended meat intakes in Russia are remarkably high (70–75 kg/year) when compared with other emerging economies, such as China (18.3 to 36.5 kg/year) and Western societies such as the USA (62 kg/year) and Germany (31.3 kg/year) [
56]. The meat market in Russia has been developing towards self-sufficiency in meat production [
57].
India is the only country where, relative to the two first statements, the agreement did not increase with age. In the individual perceptions about the importance of FAW, there was no age effect. However, the perception of the compatriots showed a decrease with age for agreements with FAW importance. This same trend can be observed for the statements referring to higher importance of low meat prices than FAW. Age had almost no effect on disagreement; however, the agreement clearly increased with age. Relative to the perception of the compatriots’ attitudes, age effects are not observed. As discussed before, this was somehow the expected result across all countries; however, as explained, the opposite is the observed tendency.
Compared to the other countries in this study, Indians were the least supportive of FAW, and together with the Chinese, were the least supportive of an increase in meat prices to improve FAW. India is itself a multicultural nation, but with a predominantly Hindu culture. The Hindu culture praises vegetarianism, and while strict vegetarianism is still in the minority among Indians, the practice remains a societal ideal [
58]. As a result, India is among the countries with lower levels of meat consumption per capita/per year (
Table 6). However, an increase in consumption, especially of poultry but also including beef, has been observed, particularly in younger generations and lower castes [
59]. Purchase power and the influence of Western culture have been identified as the main factors driving this shift [
59]. As a result, meat animal farming and the meat processing and retailing industry have been growing considerably [
60]. Indians, due to cultural and religious traditions, traditionally have a pro-FAW attitude, and this moulds their perception of the population’s attitudes towards animals, including FAW [
44]. However, this study shows that Indians compare worse with the others relative to FAW.
The Chinese respondents showed elevated levels of neutrality towards FAW, especially in youth, which impacted their overall attitude. However, this is the country where the highest shift across ages was observed, with older individuals showing prominent levels of support for FAW. This is mainly due to a decrease in the levels of neutrality. Similar trends are observed with reference to the perception of the compatriots’ attitudes towards FAW. With reference to the statements of the importance of low meat prices, neutrality was, again, extremely high, and the country had extremely low levels of disagreement, therefore supporting low meat prices. The perception of their compatriots’ attitude showed similar trends.
Nutritional deprivation has been an important constraint in Chinese society throughout its history, especially in rural areas [
61]. Especially from the 1980s, the emergence of the Chinese economy has tackled this issue. The growth in household income improved the living standards, with an impact on the nutritional status of the population [
62]. Meat consumption has increased steadily, especially in rural areas, and dairy products have become an important part of the diet [
56].
4.4. The BRIC Countries’ Role in International Trade
In the BRIC countries, culture and interests diverge despite the convergence of economic indicators [
63]. The trade of food between these countries is also different; China is a leading food importer, but Brazil and Russia (not meat, but especially grain) are mainly exporters [
63,
64]. China’s food imports were USD 9.9 billion in 2001 and increased to USD 126 billion in 2018, representing 8.3% of the food trade in the world [
65]. These authors identified China as the largest food importer from 19 countries, including Brazil and Russia. As such, China is not a major exporter of meat; therefore, poor FAW does not directly impact the economy. China is also a global leader in the production of animal protein (poultry, pork, dairy, and wildlife products) [
66]; however, there is a deficit of consideration for farm animal welfare [
67]. With its continued economic development, China’s growing middle class is placing greater emphasis on the importance of food safety and quality, especially after important scandals such as the deadly milk, the cooking oil cut with raw sewage, or the clenbuterol pork poisoning [
65,
68].
Brazil is a major exporter of meat; therefore, restrictions may be imposed if the products do not follow the FAW standards of the importing countries. In Brazil, the producers and the food industry are being encouraged to engage in animal welfare-enhancing practices, and to label their products with information on the husbandry system to reach out to concerned consumers [
69]. This fact, according to the same authors, has a potential impact on the consumers’ attitudes towards FAW. In fact, as discussed before, Brazil is the country in this study with the highest levels of individual pro-FAW attitudes.
The European Union proposed animal welfare standards in the WTO forum back in 2000; however, India (and other countries) opposed these, as they opted to prioritise the alleviation of human hunger and poverty [
70]. India stressed that countries should be left to set their own standards, rejecting a FAW labelling proposal.