Are Consumers Willing To Give Up Animal Welfare Regulations?

Regulations that protect farmed animals often lead to higher prices for animal products. When new regulations are created, a primary concern for farmers is whether consumers will pay the increased cost. Many consumers, however, are increasingly concerned with how animals used for food are treated, and may be willing to pay more for more ethical animal products like cage-free eggs.

One way to evaluate consumer price tolerance is Willingness to Accept (WTA). WTA involves asking consumers how much they would need to save to accept a less desirable product, such as eggs produced by hens in cages. This study examined WTA in the context of hypothetically removing the ban on caged eggs in three U.S. states, California, Massachusetts, and Nevada.

Researchers conducted an online survey of residents in all three states, gathering data on the quantity and cost of eggs they typically buy, as well as their knowledge of how animals are currently farmed, attitudes toward animal welfare, and empathy for animals.

First, respondents were told that their state law required all eggs sold in the state to be cage-free to protect the well-being of hens. They were then asked how much money they would need to save to get them to vote to remove the ban based on the current price they were paying for eggs. Those who wouldn’t vote yes for any amount of savings (labeled “protestors”) were asked to respond based on how they believed other residents from their state would answer. Respondents were also given a high-price scenario, where they answered the same question at a higher price point, to account for potential increases in egg prices.

A total of 3,000 responses were collected across California, Massachusetts, and Nevada. Diet preferences were consistently in line with regional trends, with 86% to 90% being meat-eaters, and the rest identifying as vegetarian, vegan, or flexitarian. Respondents in all three states dramatically underestimated the number of farmed animals raised in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs): guesses ranged from 58% to 62.5%, far below the actual figure of 99%.

Respondents had high scores in animal empathy (an average of at least four on a five-point scale) and attitudes toward animal welfare (at least three on a five-point scale), and supported corporate and government action to ensure farmed animal welfare (at least four on a five-point scale).

Close to a third (32.5%) of respondents stated that they wouldn’t vote to remove the ban for any amount of savings. Overall, respondents reported needing to save 37% to 39% on eggs to vote to remove the ban when the responses of protestors were considered.

In the high-price scenario, respondents needed to save even more in order to vote yes — anywhere from 43% to 44.5%. This indicates that as egg prices increase, more savings will be necessary for consumers to vote in favor of reduced animal welfare.

Women, high-earners, and non-white respondents needed to save more to vote yes. Conversely, older respondents needed less savings to vote to remove the ban. Vegetarians, people who paid more for groceries, and people who ate more eggs also needed less savings to vote yes. Importantly, people who were more empathetic to animals and more aware of the proportion of animals kept in CAFOs required more compensation to get ride of the ban.

Because this was a survey, the answers provided by respondents don’t necessarily reflect their real-world choices. Also, the study only surveyed egg consumers, though all residents, including those who don’t eat eggs, could potentially vote on a policy to remove the ban on cages. Thus, the findings may not represent the preferences of the broader population. Additionally, the results are specific to the three states studied, and may not apply to other parts of the country or countries other than the United States.

The researchers conclude that removing the ban on caged eggs wouldn’t be a profitable strategy for egg farmers to pursue. Prior research indicates that farmers spend 8% to 19% more on cage-free operations (depending on the type of expense), meaning that they couldn’t lower their prices by the roughly 38% necessary to retain their customers and still maintain a profit.

For advocates, a big takeaway is that animal welfare regulations like the caged-egg ban have popular support, even among meat-eaters. Around a third of consumers refused to vote to remove the ban for any amount of savings, and there was strong agreement among consumers that governments and corporations have a role to play in protecting farmed animal welfare. In addition, consumers significantly underestimated the number of farmed animals kept in CAFOs, and those who were more aware of the actual number needed more savings to vote yes. Filling this knowledge gap could be a simple way to increase interest in and support for animal welfare regulations.

One counterintuitive finding is that vegetarians required less of a price reduction to support removing the ban, likely because they tend to eat more eggs as a substitute for meat, making lower egg prices particularly appealing to them. This represents a conflicting incentive that needs to be taken into account when working with vegetarian audiences.

Overall, this study provides promising evidence to indicate that animal advocacy for cage-free eggs is working, and that U.S. residents are receptive to animal welfare regulations like bans on cages for egg-laying hens.