medigraphic.com

2012, Número 2

Siguiente >>

Vet Mex 2012; 43 (2)


Actitudes y percepciones de consumidores en la Ciudad de México, hacia atributos de la producción sustentable de alimentos de origen animal

Santurtún OE, Tapia PG, González-Rebeles C, Galindo MF

Idioma: Español/Inglés
Referencias bibliográficas: 52
Paginas: 87-101
Archivo PDF: 223.25 Kb.


RESUMEN

Los sistemas de producción de alimentos en búsqueda de una producción sustentable, integran diversos elementos como: protección al ambiente, inocuidad de los alimentos, bienestar animal y beneficios para los productores locales. Los objetivos del estudio fueron: 1) identificar actitudes de los consumidores en tres delegaciones de la Ciudad de México hacia atributos de sustentabilidad; 2) identificar sus percepciones con respecto a la producción de alimentos de origen animal en México; 3) determinar si existe un efecto de las variables sociodemográficas. Para este fin se encuestaron a 1200 consumidores de diferentes niveles socioeconómicos, en mercados de tres delegaciones de la Ciudad de México. Los resultados muestran que las actitudes y percepciones de los consumidores difieren principalmente según la delegación donde residen. Respecto a los atributos de sustentabilidad, los consumidores consideraron la inocuidad de los alimentos como el atributo más importante de un producto de origen animal, seguido por la protección al ambiente. En relación con la producción de alimentos de origen animal en México, los consumidores percibieron en primer lugar, que ésta beneficia a los productores locales, que son alimentos seguros, que se mejora el bienestar animal, y finalmente, que se conserva el ambiente. Lo anterior muestra que los consumidores en la Ciudad de México tienen actitudes positivas hacia los atributos de la producción sustentable de alimentos de origen animal, lo cual representa nuevas oportunidades para la industria alimenticia en México.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS. The State of Food and Agriculture. Rome: FAO, 2009.

  2. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS. The State of Food insecurity in the World. Rome: FAO, 2005.

  3. STEINFELD H, GERBER P, WASSENAAR T, CASTEL V, ROSALES M, DE HAAN C. Livestock´s long shadow. Environmental issues and options. Rome: FAO, 2006.

  4. WEBSTER J. Animal welfare: limping towards Eden. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005.

  5. BELK KE, SCANGA JA, GRANDIN T. Biosecurity for Animal Health and Food Safety. In: GRANDIN T, editor. Livestock Handling and Transport. Wallingford: CAB International, 2007:354-367.

  6. BROOM DM. Bienestar Animal. En: GALINDO F, ORIHUELA A, editores. Etología Aplicada. México DF: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2004:51-87.

  7. WORLD ORGANIZATION FOR ANIMAL HEALTH. Global conference on animal welfare: an OIE initiative. Paris: OIE, 2004.

  8. BAYVEL A. The OIE animal welfare strategic initiative, progress, priorities and prognosis. Proceedings of the Global Conference on animal welfare: an OIE initiative; 2004 February 13-17; Paris, France: World Organization for Animal Health, 2004:13-17.

  9. BROOM DM. Welfare and how is affected by regulation. In: KUNISH M, EKKEL H, editors. Regulation of Animal Production in Europe. Darmstad: K.T.B.L.,1999:51-57.

  10. BROOM DM. The use of the concept animal welfare in European conventions, regulations and directives. Proceedings Food Chain; 2001 March 14-16; Uppsala, Sweden: SLU Services, 2001:148-151.

  11. BROOM DM. Does present legislation help animal welfare? Landbauforsch Volk 2002; 227: 63-69.

  12. CHILTON S, BURGESS D, HUTCHINSON W. The relative value of farm animal welfare. Ecol Econ 2006; 29:353-363.

  13. AERTS S. Animal welfare in assurance schemes: benchmarking for progress. In: ZOLLITSCH W, WINCKLER W, WAIBLINGER C, HASLBERGER A, editors. Sustainable food production and ethics: Preprints of the 7th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics. Vienna: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2007: 279-283.

  14. KORZEN-BOHR S, LASSEN J. Is it possible to make riskreduction strategies socially sustainable? In: ZOLLITSCH W, WINCKLER W, WAIBLINGER C, HASLBERGER A, editors. Sustainable food production and ethics: Preprints of the 7th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics. Vienna: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2007:371-375.

  15. KJARNES U. Ethics and action: a relational perspective on food trends and consumer concerns. In: ZOLLITSCH W, WINCKLER W, WAIBLINGER C, HASLBERGER A, editors. Sustainable food production and ethics: Preprints of the 7th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics. Vienna: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2007:43-48.

  16. SUNDRUM A. Conflicting areas in the ethical debate on animal health and welfare. In: ZOLLITSCH W, WINCKLER W, WAIBLINGER C, HASLBERGER A, editors. Sustainable food production and ethics: Preprints of the 7th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics. Vienna: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2007:257-262.

  17. KULO M, VRAMO LM. Sheep welfare in the welfare state: ethical aspects of the conventionalization of Norwegian organic production. In: ZOLLITSCH W, WINCKLER W, WAIBLINGER C, HASLBERGER A, editors. Sustainable food production and ethics. Vienna: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2007:273-278.

  18. CHALLENGER A. Utilización y conservación de los ecosistemas terrestres de México. Pasado, Presente y Futuro. México DF: CONABIO, Instituto de Biología, UNAM y Sierra Madre AC, 1998.

  19. PÉREZ ER. Notas sobre el sector pecuario en México. En: CAVALLOTTI VB, PALACIO VH, editores. La ganadería: experiencias y reflexiones. México DF: Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, 2004:125-138.

  20. FRASER D. The “New Perception” of animal agriculture: Legless cows, featherless chickens, and a need for genuine analysis. J Anim Sci 2001;79:634-641.

  21. REISCH L. Principles and visions of a new consumer policy. J Consum Policy 2004;27:1-42.

  22. ENKERLIN EC, CANO G, GARZA RA, VOGEL E. Ciencia Ambiental y Desarrollo Sostenible. México D.F: International Thomson Editores,1997.

  23. SAYER JA, CAMPBELL BM. The Science of Sustainable Development. Local livelihoods and the global environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

  24. GAMBORG C, SANDOE P. Sustainability in farm animal breeding: a review. Livest Sci 2005;92:221-233.

  25. WIBERG S, ALGERS A, ALGERS B, FRANZEN U, LINDENCRONA M, MOEN O et al. Logistics at transport to slaughter: food and environment-optimized animal transport. In: ZOLLITSCH W, WINCKLER W, WAIBLINGER C, HASLBERGER A, editors. Sustainable food production and ethics. Vienna: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2007:244-248.

  26. MOYNAGH J. EU regulation and consumer demand for animal welfare. AgBioForum 2000;3:107-114.

  27. TALLONTIRE A, RENTSENDORJ E, BLOWFIELD M. Ethical consumers and ethical trade: A review of current literature. Policy Series 12. Chatman: Natural Resources Institute, 2001.

  28. BROOM DM. Future food animal production efficiency and acceptability. In: SHAMSUDDIN ZH, editor. Agriculture Congress: Innovation towards Modernized Agriculture. Serdang: University Putra Malaysia, 2004:17-21.

  29. KJARNES U. Ethics and action: a relational perspective on food trends and consumer concerns. In: ZOLLITSCH W, WINCKLER W, WAIBLINGER C, HASLBERGER A, editors. Sustainable food production and ethics. Vienna: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2007:43-48.

  30. CORNELISSEN A, VAN DEN BERG J, KOOPS WJ, GROSSMAN M, UDO H. Assessment of the contribution of sustainability indicators to sustainable development: a novel approach using fuzzy set theory. Agr Ecosyst Environ 2001;86:173-185.

  31. BARRAZA L, RUIZ-MALLÉN I, DÍAZ D. Percepciones urbanas sobre los Organismos Genéticamente Modificados en tres estados de México. México DF: Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, UNAM, 2007.

  32. INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ESTADÍSTICA Y GEOGRAFÍA. Regiones Socioeconómicas de México. [Serie en línea:2007 noviembre] [Citado: 2007/nov/10]. Disponible en: URL:http://jweb.inegi.gob.mx/niveles/jsp/index.jsp.

  33. MCGLONE JJ. Farm animal welfare in the context of other society issues: toward sustainable systems. Livest Sci 2001; 72:75-81.

  34. TE VELDE H, AARTS N, VAN WOERKUM C. Dealing with ambivalent: farmers and consumers perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. J Agr Environ Ethic 2002;15:203-219.

  35. OPPENHEIM AN. Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London: Pinter publishers Ltd,1992.

  36. ZAR JH. Biostatistical Analysis. New Yersey: Prentice Hall International,1999.

  37. INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ESTADÍSTICA Y GEOGRAFÍA. Encuesta Nacional de Ocupación y Empleo 2005. Aguascalientes (México): INEGI, 2006.

  38. SCOTT D, USHER R. Researching education data, methods and theory in educational enquiry. London: Cassell, 1999.

  39. MCDONALD JH. Handbook of Biological Statistics. Baltimore: Sparky House Publishing, 2009.

  40. SPSS. Statistical algorithms. Chicago: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Inc.,1991.

  41. SUNDRUM A. Conflicting areas in the ethical debate on animal health and welfare. In: ZOLLITSCH W, WINCKLER W, WAIBLINGER C, HASLBERGER A, editors. Sustainable food production and ethics. Vienna: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2007:257-262.

  42. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Attitudes of consumers toward the welfare of farmed animals. Special Eurobarometer 229/ Wave 63.2. Brussels, 2005.

  43. MOHAI P, BRYANT B. Is there a “race” effect on concern for environmental quality? Public Opin Quart 1998;62:475-505.

  44. BERNUES A, OLAIZOLA A, CORCORAN K. Labeling information demanded by European consumers and relationship with purchasing motives, quality and safety of meat. Meat Sci 2003;65:1095-1106.

  45. KNOWLES T, WARRIS P. Stress physiology of animals during transport. In: GRANDIN T, editor. Livestock Handling and Transport. Wallingford: CAB International, 2007:312-328.

  46. MCEACHERN M, SHRÖDER M. The role of livestock production ethics in consumers values toward meat. J Agr Environ Ethic 2002;15:221-237.

  47. WATSON J, WRIGHT K. Consumer ethnocentrism and attitudes toward domestic and foreign products. Eur J Marketing 2000;34:1149-1166.

  48. UYEKI ES, HOLLAND LJ. Diffusion of proenvi-ronment attitudes? Am Behav Sci 2000;43: 646-662.

  49. KELLERT S. The biological basis for human values of nature. In: KELLERT S, WILSON, EO, editors. The biophilia hypothesis. Washington: Island Press, 1993:42-69.

  50. AOYAGI-USUI M, VINKEN H, KURIBAYASHI A. Pro-environment attitudes and behaviors: an international comparison. Hum Ecol Rev 2003;10:123-31.

  51. LAPPALAINEN R, KEARNEY J, GIBNEY M. A Pan-EU survey of consumer attitudes to food, nutrition and health: An overview. Food Qual Prefer 1998;9:467-478.

  52. BRUNSO K, FJORD TA, GRUNERT KG. Consumers´ food choice and quality perception. MAPP working paper No. 77. Aarhus: Aarhus School of Business, 2002.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com