Negative Perceptions of Broiler Consumers: Exploring Societal Attitudes, Cultural Ethics, and Health Concerns for Sustainable Production

Year : 2025 | Volume : 14 | Issue : 02 | Page : 9 22
    By

    Md. Emran Hossain,

  • Shilpi Islam,

  1. Professor, Department of Animal Science and Nutrition, Chattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Khulshi, Chattogram, Bangladesh, South Asia
  2. Professor, Department of Animal Science and Nutrition, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University, Salna, Gazipur, Bangladesh, South Asia

Abstract

Negative perceptions of broiler chicken remain a significant barrier to its acceptance and market sustainability. This study investigates the societal attitudes, cultural ethics, and health concerns that influence consumer perceptions and challenges the broiler industry. Ethical issues, including animal welfare and perceived unnatural rearing practices, often fuel consumer distrust. Health concerns such as antibiotic residues, growth hormone usage (often misunderstood), and lower nutritional value compared to native breeds further exacerbate negative views. Cultural factors, including preferences for traditional poultry breeds and mistrust in industrialized farming, also contribute to this resistance. Environmental concerns, such as pollution and resource inefficiency, amplify the criticism. By categorizing these perceptions into health, ethics, environment, and consumer behavior, the study provides a comprehensive analysis of the factors affecting broiler acceptance. Addressing these issues requires transparent production practices, improved animal welfare standards, enhanced consumer education, and the promotion of sustainable farming systems. This study underscores the need for an integrated approach to rebuild consumer trust while ensuring sustainability in broiler production. Insights from this research can guide policymakers, producers, and stakeholders in reshaping public perception and aligning broiler farming practices with ethical, cultural, and health priorities for long-term market success.

Keywords: Antibiotic residues, broiler chicken, consumer perceptions, cultural ethics, environmental concerns, health concerns, sustainable production, welfare standards

[This article belongs to Research & Reviews : Journal of Food Science & Technology ]

How to cite this article:
Md. Emran Hossain, Shilpi Islam. Negative Perceptions of Broiler Consumers: Exploring Societal Attitudes, Cultural Ethics, and Health Concerns for Sustainable Production. Research & Reviews : Journal of Food Science & Technology. 2025; 14(02):9-22.
How to cite this URL:
Md. Emran Hossain, Shilpi Islam. Negative Perceptions of Broiler Consumers: Exploring Societal Attitudes, Cultural Ethics, and Health Concerns for Sustainable Production. Research & Reviews : Journal of Food Science & Technology. 2025; 14(02):9-22. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/rrjofst/article=2025/view=211872


References

  1. De Jonge and H. C. M. van Trijp, “The impact of broiler production system practices on consumer perceptions of animal welfare,” Poult. Sci., vol. 92, no. 12, pp. 3080–3095, 2013, doi: 10.3382/ps.2013-03334.
  2. A. Himu and A. Raihan, “A review of the effects of intensive poultry production on the environment and human health,” Int. J. Vet. Res., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 55–106, 2023.
  3. Kathiravan and K. Chitrambigai, “Consumer Preferences for Native Chicken Meat in India: Implications for Sustainable Production and Household Dynamics,” Curr. Res. Nutr. Food Sci., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 166–180, 2024, doi: 10.12944/CRNFSJ.12.1.14.
  4. Muaz, M. Riaz, S. Akhtar, S. Park, and A. Ismail, “Antibiotic residues in chicken meat: Global prevalence, threats, and decontamination strategies: A review,” J. Food Prot., vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 619–627, 2018, doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-17-086.
  5. Esquivel-Hernandez, R. E. Ahumada-Cota, M. Attene-Ramos, C. Z. Alvarado, P. Castañeda-Serrano, and G. M. Nava, “Making things clear: Science-based reasons that chickens are not fed growth hormones,” Trends Food Sci. Technol., vol. 51, pp. 106–110, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2016.01.013.
  6. T. Thames and A. Theradiyil Sukumaran, “A review of Salmonella and Campylobacter in broiler meat: emerging challenges and food safety measures,” Foods, vol. 9, no. 6, p. 776, 2020.
  7. Karasu and E. Ozturk, “Effects of Allegations Regarding the Use of Antibiotics and Hormones in Diets on Consumer Perceptions, Attitudes and Behaviors towards Broiler Meat Consumption,” Turkish J. Agric. Sci. Technol., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 675–682, 2021.
  8. D. Hedman, K. A. Vasco, and L. Zhang, “A review of antimicrobial resistance in poultry farming within low‐resource settings,” Animals, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 1–39, 2020, doi: 10.3390/ani10081264.
  9. Karasu and E. Ozturk, “The effects of genetically modified feeds on consumers’ preferences in buying broiler meat,” Austin J. Nutr. Metab., vol. 7, no. 4, p. 1087, 2020.
  10. Zhou et al., “Evaluating broiler welfare and behavior as affected by growth rate and stocking density,” Poult. Sci., vol. 103, no. 4, p. 103459, 2024.
  11. S. Nielsen et al., “Welfare of broilers on farm,” EFSA J., vol. 21, no. 2, 2023, doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7788.
  12. Son, H. J. Kim, E. C. Hong, and H. K. Kang, “Effects of Stocking Density on Growth Performance, Antioxidant Status, and Meat Quality of Finisher Broiler Chickens under High Temperature,” Antioxidants, vol. 11, no. 5, 2022, doi: 10.3390/antiox11050871.
  13. S. Dawkins and R. Layton, “Breeding for better welfare: Genetic goals for broiler chickens and their parents,” Anim. Welf., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 147–155, 2012, doi: 10.7120/09627286.21.2.147.
  14. Sosnówka-Czajka and I. Skomorucha, “Sudden death syndrome in broiler chickens: A review on the etiology and prevention of the syndrome,” Ann. Anim. Sci., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 865–871, 2022, doi: 10.2478/aoas-2022-0007.
  15. Reithmayer and O. Mußhoff, “Consumer preferences for alternatives to chick culling in Germany,” Poult. Sci., vol. 98, no. 10, pp. 4539–4548, 2019.
  16. C. Whitehead, R. H. Fleming, R. J. Julian, and P. Sørensen, “Skeletal problems associated with selection for increased production,” Poult. Genet. Breed. Biotechnol., vol. 29, p. 52, 2003.
  17. S. George and A. S. H. George, “Optimizing poultry production through advanced monitoring and control systems,” Partners Univers. Int. Innov. J., vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 77–97, 2023.
  18. Fox, “Inadequate Protection of Animals against Cruel Animal Husbandry Practices under United States Law,” Whittier Law Rev., vol. 17, p. 145, 1995.
  19. Farzana, M. Habib, M. H. Ali, M. A. Hashem, and M. S. Ali, “Comparison of meat yield and quality characteristics between indigenous chicken and commercial broiler,” Bangladesh Vet., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 61–70, 2017.
  20. Wattanachant, S. Benjakul, and D. A. Ledward, “Composition, color, and texture of thai indigenous and broiler chicken muscles,” Poult. Sci., vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 123–128, 2004, doi: 10.1093/ps/83.1.123.
  21. Wychodnik, G. Gałęzowska, J. Rogowska, M. Potrykus, A. Plenis, and L. Wolska, “Poultry farms as a potential source of environmental pollution by pharmaceuticals,” Molecules, vol. 25, no. 5, p. 1031, 2020.
  22. N. El Melki, O. Rhouma, A. Barkouti, and H. Selmi, “Impact of Climate Change on Broiler Chicken Productivity and Reproduction,” in Modern Technology and Traditional Husbandry of Broiler Farming, IntechOpen, 2024.
  23. B. Bist et al., “Sustainable poultry farming practices: a critical review of current strategies and future prospects,” Poult. Sci., vol. 103, no. 12, p. 104295, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2024.104295.
  24. Gržinić et al., “Intensive poultry farming: A review of the impact on the environment and human health,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 858, p. 160014, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160014.
  25. Kheiralipour, S. Rafiee, M. Karimi, M. Nadimi, and J. Paliwal, “The environmental impacts of commercial poultry production systems using life cycle assessment: a review,” Worlds. Poult. Sci. J., vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 33–54, 2024.
  26. S. Akter, M. T. Uddin, and A. R. Dhar, “Advancing safe broiler farming in Bangladesh: An investigation of management practices, financial profitability, and consumer perceptions,” Commodities, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 312–328, 2023.
  27. Adjei-Mensah, C. C. Kpomasse, E. Talaki, and K. Tona, “Challenges of Small-Scale Broiler Production in Rural West Africa,” 2024.
  28. Heft-Neal, J. Otte, W. Pupphavessa, D. Roland-Holst, S. Sudsawasd, and D. Zilberman, “Supply chain auditing for poultry production in thailand,” Pro-poor Livest. Policy Initiat. Res. Rep., no. 08, p. 54, 2008.
  29. Jayaraman, H. Munira, D. Chowdhury, and M. Iranmanesh, “The preference and consumption of chicken lovers with race as a moderator-An empirical study in Malaysia,” Int. Food Res. J., vol. 20, no. 1, p. 165, 2013.
  30. A. Buddle, “Australian meat consumers’ understandings of farm animal welfare,” Thesis, no. January, 2019.
  31. K. Bannor, S. Abele, J. K. M. Kuwornu, H. Oppong-Kyeremeh, and E. D. Yeboah, “Consumer segmentation and preference for indigenous chicken products,” J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 75–93, 2022.
  32. Leighton, “The Harms of Industrial Food Production: How Modern Agriculture, Livestock Rearing and Food Processing Contribute to Disease, Environmental Degradation and Worker Exploitation,” Palgrave Handb. Soc. harm, pp. 199–225, 2021, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-72408-5_9.
  33. Okunlola, M. Ngubane, B. Cousins, and A. du Toit, “Challenging the stereotypes: Small-scale black farmers and private sector support programmes in South Africa. A national scan.,” PLAAS Res. Rep. 53, no. 53, 2016.
  34. C. Morris, “The ethics and politics of animal welfare in New Zealand: broiler chicken production as a case study,” J. Agric. Environ. Ethics, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 15–30, 2009.
  35. Saranraj, A. Abbas, S. Alfaris, and S. Kavi Karunya, “Preservation of Broiler Chicken from Food Borne Microorganisms: A Review,” Glob. Vet., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 282–294, 2016.
  36. Kiilholma, “Food-safety concerns in the poultry sector of developing countries,” Food Agric. Organ. United Nations, pp. 1–20, 2007.
  37. S. Cockram, K. J. Dulal, R. A. Mohamed, and C. W. Revie, “Risk factors for bruising and mortality of broilers during manual handling, module loading, transport, and lairage,” Can. J. Anim. Sci., vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 50–65, 2018.
  38. Queenan, S. Cuevas, T. Mabhaudhi, M. Chimonyo, R. Slotow, and B. Häsler, “A Qualitative Analysis of the Commercial Broiler System, and the Links to Consumers’ Nutrition and Health, and to Environmental Sustainability: A South African Case Study,” Front. Sustain. food Syst., vol. 5, p. 650469, 2021.
  39. A. Weeks, “Poultry handling and transport.,” in Livestock handling and transport, CABI Wallingford UK, 2014, pp. 378–398.
  40. Guarino Amato and C. Castellini, “Adaptability challenges for organic broiler chickens: a commentary,” Animals, vol. 12, no. 11, p. 1354, 2022.
  41. C. Kpomasse, O. E. Oke, F. M. Houndonougbo, and K. Tona, “Broiler production challenges in the tropics: A review,” Vet. Med. Sci., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 831–842, 2021.
  42. M. Hartcher and H. K. Lum, “Genetic selection of broilers and welfare consequences: a review,” Worlds. Poult. Sci. J., vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 154–167, 2020, doi: 10.1080/00439339.2019.1680025.
  43. H. Haque et al., “Sustainable antibiotic-free broiler meat production: Current trends, challenges, and possibilities in a developing country perspective,” Biology (Basel)., vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 1–24, 2020, doi: 10.3390/biology9110411.
  44. A. M. Bokkers and I. J. M. De Boer, “Economic, ecological, and social performance of conventional and organic broiler production in the Netherlands,” Br. Poult. Sci., vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 546–557, 2009.
  45. P. S. Yadav, N. P. Ghimire, B. Yadav, and P. Paudel, “Key requirements, status, possibilities, consumer perceptions, and barriers of organic poultry farming: A review,” Fundam. Appl. Agric., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 150–167, 2022.
  46. Gorton et al., “Consumers’ willingness to pay for an animal welfare food label,” Ecol. Econ., vol. 209, p. 107852, 2023.

 

Regular Issue Subscription Original Research
Volume 14
Issue 02
Received 12/03/2025
Accepted 12/04/2025
Published 15/04/2025
Publication Time 34 Days
176

Login


My IP

PlumX Metrics