Advancing Vegan Advocacy In India: What Drives Dietary Change?

In recent years, India has seen a rapid increase in the production and consumption of animal-derived products. Despite a common global perception of India as a largely vegetarian nation, data suggests that only about 27% to 29% of the population is vegetarian, while a significant majority — roughly 83% of men and 71% of women aged 15 to 49 — identify as non-vegetarian. This shift toward industrialized animal agriculture has serious implications for animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and climate change.

The purpose of this exploratory study, the third and final phase of a larger project (see also parts one and two), is to provide animal advocates in India with data-driven insights to enhance the effectiveness of their campaigns. By exploring the public’s knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding dietary choices, researchers aimed to identify what drives people to adopt veganism, and what prevents them.

The researchers administered an online survey to 1,000 English-fluent participants aged 18 to 60 living in five major metropolitan areas: Bengaluru, Chennai, Delhi NCR, Kolkata, and Mumbai. These cities were selected because they represent sites with more focused vegan advocacy and a supporting ecosystem of vegan products. Participants were recruited to reflect the national population ratio of 30% vegetarians and 70% non-vegetarians. Current vegans were excluded from the study. The final sample consisted of 52% men and 48% women, primarily identifying as Hindu (80%) or Muslim (14%).

Participants answered questions about their:

• Knowledge of the term “vegan,” factory farming practices, and vegan meat and dairy substitutes;
• Attitudes toward food, animal rights, factory farming practices, and vegans and veganism; and
• Current dietary practices.

The researchers then analyzed how these and other demographic factors influenced their intention to adopt veganism.

Thoughts On Vegans And Veganism

The survey uncovered a significant disconnect between general awareness and accurate understanding of veganism in India. While 77% of participants were familiar with the term, less than half (41%) correctly defined what it entails. Misconceptions, such as believing that vegans just abstain from eating meat, were common.

Despite this lack of awareness, the general perception of vegan food is positive: 72% of participants viewed it as “healthy and nutritious,” and 61% found it “tasty.” However, affordability remains a concern, with 43% agreeing that vegan food is “costly.” Overall, participants were more aware of milk substitutes (67%) than meat substitutes (42%).

Views of vegans themselves are mixed. While many admired them (60%), over half (54%) viewed them as “elitists” promoting an “impractical lifestyle,” hinting at a persistent social stigma.

Views Around Animal Rights

Attitudes toward animals highlight how ethical concern shifts based on context. Close to three-quarters (71%) of participants believed that “all animals deserve to enjoy their natural habitat, free from captivity,” and 70% agreed that animal lives are morally equal to human lives. However, when animals are framed explicitly as food, this ethical alignment weakens. Only 61% expressed concern for the welfare of animals raised for meat and dairy, illustrating an undercurrent of speciesism.

Beliefs About Factory Farming

Public awareness of routine factory farming practices is low, particularly for the poultry industry. This is concerning because chicken is the most consumed meat in India. For instance, 66% of participants selected “not aware” or “false” in response to a correct statement about male chick culling.

For the dairy sector, 50% of participants didn’t realize that cows are artificially inseminated, and 53% didn’t realize that the industry involves killing. Interestingly, public disapproval was higher for dairy practices than for meat production: 45% found it unacceptable to artificially breed and raise cows for milk, compared to 34% objecting to breeding and slaughtering animals for meat. As the report notes, this disparity likely reflects the cultural reverence for cows in India, providing a distinct psychological opening for advocacy messaging.

Intentions To Go Vegan

Overall, under half (44%) of participants agreed that they could think about becoming vegan. This intention is driven primarily by personal benefits and environmental concerns rather than animal rights alone. Health and fitness (63%) and environmental sustainability (60%) are the top motivators for considering a dietary change.

Concern for animal rights (55%) ranks as the weakest driver, though it’s more influential among the 18- to 24-year-old demographic (59% compared to 56% or less for older age groups).

Positive predictors of the intention to adopt veganism included:

• Awareness of milk substitutes;
• Awareness of artificial insemination in the dairy industry;
• Belief in the health benefits of plant-based diets;
• Strong animal rights beliefs;
• Availability of vegan food; and
• Perceived social acceptability of veganism.

Frequent meat consumption and high perceived costs of plant-based foods correlated with resistance to dietary change.

The analysis also identified three target demographics most primed for vegan adoption:

1. Women showed a statistically significant correlation with the intention to adopt veganism, an effect supported by larger national trends indicating they consume less meat than men.
2. Younger people aged 18 to 30 scored lower on the speciesism scale, had a higher awareness of both dairy and meat substitutes, and were less likely to view meat-eating as a sign of modernity.
3. Vegetarians expressed a greater openness to becoming vegan (54%) compared to non-vegetarians (42%), largely due to their more positive views on the health and taste of plant-based foods.

Effective Advocacy In India

The researchers advise caution when applying these findings to the broader Indian population. The sample size of 1,000 is relatively small and focused exclusively on English-fluent urban residents in major metropolitan areas, excluding a vast portion of the country’s diverse population. Additionally, because the baseline understanding of the term “vegan” was low, responses about vegan food may reflect people’s impressions more than their actual experience with plant-based products.

Despite these limitations, the report still provides a strong foundation for advocates to build more effective campaigns. The researchers offer a number of recommendations to help strengthen these efforts based on their findings.

• Lead with health and environment: Because personal health, fitness, and environmental sustainability are the most salient drivers, campaigns should highlight these benefits rather than solely relying on animal rights messaging. Health benefits should be discussed on a standalone basis as comparisons to meat-eating frequently alienate non-vegetarians.
• Highlight “default” vegan foods: To combat the perception that veganism is an elitist, expensive, or impractical Western fashion, advocates should remind audiences that mainstream Indian cuisine is rich with staple dishes that are entirely plant-based and vegan by default. This deconstructs the idea of a costly, “foreign” diet and positions veganism as a doable practice.
• Prioritize dairy advocacy: Given the higher awareness of milk substitutes and the greater disapproval of dairy industry practices, advocates have a significant opportunity to encourage a transition away from dairy.
• Emphasize personal choice: Dietary choices are sensitive and deeply politicized in India. Framing vegan advocacy around personal choice is essential to deflect hostility and avoid being labeled as judgmental or moralistic.
• Build social support: Social approval is a key predictor of dietary change. Creating localized social networks and securing endorsements from prominent figures can provide motivation and support, and help prevent isolation.

This summary was drafted by a large language model (LLM) and closely edited by our Research Library Manager for clarity and accuracy. As per our AI policy, Faunalytics only uses LLMs to summarize very long reports (~50+ pages) that are not appropriate to assign to volunteers, studies that contain graphic descriptions of animal cruelty or animal industries, and research on niche topics. We remain committed to bringing you reliable data, which is why any AI-generated work will always be reviewed by a human.