Farmed animal welfare can be influenced through multiple pathways, including market-based approaches, political mandates, and animal advocacy organizations. Support for these different pathways is linked to dietary choice, but until now, research hasn’t examined dietary choices and farmed animal welfare policy preferences side-by-side.

This nationally representative study surveyed 1,020 U.S. residents to explore policy preferences among omnivores, flexitarians, vegans, vegetarians, pescatarians, and others. The author focused on the dairy industry because several common practices such as artificial insemination, horn removal, and early separation of calves from their mothers are contentious, and there’s considerable scope for improving welfare standards through different regulatory mechanisms.

Those surveyed were asked about their dietary choices, value orientations, attitudes toward animal use, and willingness to pay for more ethically produced milk. The author also assessed their support for four different approaches to regulating farmed animal welfare:

1. Market-based mechanisms (e.g., voluntarily purchasing higher-welfare products);
2. Political mechanisms (e.g., government legislation that mandates welfare standards);
3. Donations to animal charities seeking higher welfare standards; and
4. Donations to animal rights groups campaigning for the end of animal agriculture.

Key Findings

Overall, the study points to a preference for market-based mechanisms from 46% of respondents. As for the rest, 25% preferred political mechanisms, 18% supported charities pushing for higher animal welfare standards, and 11% favored groups looking to abolish animal farming.

Demographic Patterns

The demographic factors considered were age, income, place of residence, gender, education, household size, and number of children in the household. The results showed the following tendencies:

• Respondents living in urban areas preferred political over market-based mechanisms.
• Higher-income households supported market-based approaches.
• Older respondents preferred market-based mechanisms and were less likely to support charities advocating for improved farmed animal welfare standards.
• Females supported political mechanisms and animal charities seeking higher welfare standards.
• Younger respondents supported groups pushing to end animal farming.
• There was a Midwest-Northeast divide, as 32% of those living in the Northeast favored political mechanisms and 51% of those from the Midwest favored market-based approaches.
• Respondents in the South showed the highest support (22%) for groups opposed to animal agriculture.

Value Differences

The study used the Schwartz framework to evaluate respondents’ value orientations. This framework highlights four “higher order” values based on different motivations that shape behavior. These were the resulting correlations:

• Those who valued openness to change indicated support for political mandates and charities advocating for improved farmed animal welfare standards.
• Those who valued self-transcendence (e.g., concern for others) preferred political mandates but opposed abolishing animal agriculture altogether.
• Those who valued conservation (e.g., conformity, security, and tradition) indicated a preference for voluntary market-based approaches.
• Those who valued self-enhancement (e.g., power and achievement) signaled a lack of support for market-based mechanisms.

Willingness To Pay Comparisons

Individuals were also asked about their maximum willingness to pay for milk from farms that provide additional contact for cows and their calves. Reported willingness to pay was high amongst all groups according to their policy preferences:

• Those supporting charities seeking to end animal agriculture were willing to pay 60% more every week.
• Those preferring political mechanisms were willing to pay 59% more every week.
• Those supporting charities campaigning for higher farmed animal welfare standards were willing to pay 57% more every week.
• Those favoring market-based approaches were willing to pay 54% more every week.

However, the author warns that surveying people about their willingness to pay is a challenge, as their answers don’t always align with their actions in real life.

Trends By Dietary Group

The breakdown of the survey sample was 71% omnivores, 11% flexitarians, 8% vegetarians, 5% vegans, and 5% pescatarians and “other.”

Unsurprisingly, omnivores were found to be less likely to support animal rights groups that advocate against conventional farming, while vegans favored stricter government regulations.

The author suggests that vegans’ support for mandated welfare improvements for products they don’t actually eat could be “strategic behavior,” as these measures may result in additional costs for consumers who do purchase animal products.

Implications

Support for different farmed animal welfare regulations may look different across the U.S. depending on demographics, values, and dietary choices. This research suggests that market-based approaches that raise welfare standards while preserving individual choice may be the most successful in regions opposed to stricter government regulation.

The study also highlights some ways in which progressive demographics may help shape policies. For instance, as the plant-based consumer segment grows, emphasis may shift from voluntary standards to mandated compliance. Co-governance models may also emerge, in which private sector initiatives complement public policy that sets the minimum standards.

Ultimately, in the midst of these complexities, it’s clear that small consumer groups such as vegans have the potential to influence significant policy changes by strategically supporting legislation and non-profit organizations to improve farmed animal welfare.