Increased focus towards food safety and quality is reshaping food purchasing decisions around the world. Although some food attributes are visible, many of the attributes that consumers seek and are willing to pay a price premium for are not. Consequently, consumers rely on trusted cues and information to help them verify the food quality and credence attributes they seek. In this study, we synthesise the findings from previous research to generate a framework illustrating the key trust influencing factors that are beyond visual and brand-related cues. Our framework identifies that consumer trust in food and the food system is established through the assurances related to individual food products and the actors of the food system. Specifically, product assurance builds consumer trust through food packaging labels communicating food attribute claims, certifications, country or region of origin, and food traceability information. In addition, producers, processors, and retailers provide consumers with food safety and quality assurances, while government agencies, third-party institutions, advocacy groups, and the mass media may modify how labelling information and food operators are perceived by consumers. We hope our framework will guide future research efforts to test these trust factors in various consumer and market settings.

Food credence attributes (e.g., food safety, organic, and carbon neutral production methods) are quality characteristics of products that cannot be assessed by buyers at the point of sale without additional information (e.g., certification labels). Hence, the ability to access credence attributes of a particular product can result in a situation termed as asymmetric distributed information among supply chain stakeholders (e.g., producers, processors, wholesalers, retailers, consumer) where one party of a market transaction is in possession of more information about a product than the other party. This situation can lead to potential inefficiencies, e.g., misinformation, risk of food borne illness, or opportunistic behavior such as fraud. The present study sought to develop a conceptual framework that describes a) the motivation for key stakeholders to participate in the market for food credence attributes, b) the type of food credence attributes that key stakeholders provide, and c) current mechanisms to address the issue of information asymmetry among the stakeholders in the food system. The study was conducted using an integrative literature review. The developed framework consists of two components: a) the food supply chain and b) the attribute assurance system among which multiple links exist. The findings suggest that retailers, processors, NGOs, and government authorities are influential stakeholders within the supply chain of food credence attributes by imposing food quality standards which can address information asymmetry among food actors. While the credence attribute assurance system (e.g., food standards, third party food attribute assurance providers) can potentially address the issue of asymmetric information among market stakeholders, a range of issues remain. These include food standards as a potential market entry barrier for food producers and distributors, limited food standard harmonization, and communication challenges of food attribute assurance (e.g., consumers’ signal processing, signal use and trust). The syntheses presented in this study contributes to stakeholders’ (e.g., supply chain actors, scientists, policy makers) improved understanding about the components of the credence food system and their integration as well as the drivers for change in this system.

Understanding the global economic importance of farmed animals to society is essential as a baseline for decision making about future food systems. We estimated the annual global economic (market) value of live animals and primary production outputs, e.g., meat, eggs, milk, from terrestrial and aquatic farmed animal systems. The results suggest that the total global market value of farmed animals ranges between 1.61 and 3.3 trillion USD (2018) and is expected to be similar in absolute terms to the market value of crop outputs (2.57 trillion USD). The cattle sector dominates the market value of farmed animals. The study highlights the need to consider other values of farmed animals to society, e.g., finance/insurance value and cultural value, in decisions about the sector’s future.

Substrates and objects are provided to farm animals on the assumption that they improve animal welfare by enriching the environment, but these often fail to consider the extent to which an environmental enrichment (EE) improves animal welfare, if at all. Furthermore, there are numerous definitions of EE, each with a unique expectation. If expectations of animal welfare improvement are set too high, industry uptake may be thwarted, but if thresholds are set too low it will not result in meaningful improvements to animal welfare. We propose an EE framework based on revised definitions of EE that reflect improvements to various components of animal welfare: (i) pseudo-enrichment; (ii) EE for meeting basic needs; (iii) EE for pleasure; and (iv) EE for positive welfare balance. This framework requires short- and long-term assessments to determine the impact of the EE, although many are lacking in the production animal literature. Redefining EE with a focus on specific animal welfare outcomes will assist producers in identifying the optimal EE for their enterprise. Subsequently, we encourage dialogue between farmers, researchers and industry stakeholders when designing environmental enrichment programmes. This framework is a science-based tool that can be used to inform the development of clear EE assessment protocols and requirements for animal welfare legislation, assurance programmes and industry. This evidence-based framework ensures that the focus is on the outcome of EE programmes rather than the intent. Importantly, this framework has the flexibility to adapt even as baseline environments evolve, ensuring the continual improvement to production animal welfare.

Economic competition between introduced and native aquaculture species is of interest for industry stakeholders since increased production can affect price formation if both aquaculture species are part of the same market or even substitutes. In this study, we focus on the Australian edible oyster industry, which is dominated by two major species—the native Sydney rock oyster (grown mainly in Queensland and New South Wales) and the non-native Pacific oyster (grown mainly in South Australia and Tasmania). We examine the integration of the Australian oyster market to determine if there exists a single or several markets. Short- and long-run own, cross-price and income flexibilities of demand are estimated for both species using an inverse demand system of equations. The results suggest that the markets for the two species are integrated. We found evidence that the development of the Pacific oyster industry has had an adverse impact on Sydney rock oyster prices. However, our results show that both species are not perfect substitutes. Demand for Sydney rock oysters is relatively inelastic in the long run, yet no long-run relationships can be identified for Pacific oysters, reflecting the developing nature of this sector