Paradoxical consumers in four European countries: Meat-eating justification and willingness to pay for meat from animals treated by alternatives to surgical castration

To prevent boar taint, male piglets are commonly castrated without pain relief, causing them tremendous pain. There are, however, three alternatives, all of which have pros and cons: (1) surgical castration (SC) with pain relief, which removes boar taint but involves extra work for farmers and veterinarians; (2) raising non-castrated or entire male pigs (EM) in combination with a boar-taint detection method; and (3) immuno-castration (IC) by vaccination, which can lower the risk of boar taint acquired from GnRH pulses, but there are concerns about consumer response. The successful marketing of products from animals treated by alternatives to conventional castration depends on consumer acceptance. The current study (involving 3574 participants from Belgium, France, Spain, and Poland) aims to determine whether consumers' willingness to pay for meat from animals treated by alternatives depends on their attitude towards pork, attitude towards local ways of farming, and knowledge of animal welfare. We interpret these in the context of a meat-related moral dilemma and further investigate whether consumers resolve the moral dilemma by applying meat-eating-justification (i.e., apologetic or unapologetic) strategies. The results show that participants are least willing to pay for pork from castrates without pain relief. Willingness to pay for IC pork scores highest, followed by EM. Some consumer groups used an apologetic strategy to reduce the dissonance between moral dilemma and willingness to pay for meat from SC castrates. For the European market, it appears therefore feasible to market pork produced using IC or EM methods.