What do people in different countries think about farmed animal welfare? How much do culture, religion, and geography affect the amount of personal connection people feel towards certain animals? In light of these contextual factors, what might animal advocates and policymakers want to do differently?

This study examined public attitudes to farmed animal welfare across 20,802 survey respondents in 23 countries. The researchers predicted that attitudes are shaped by culture (especially current rates of meat consumption in a country), religion, the strength of animal welfare legislation, people’s knowledge of farmed animal welfare, and the number of advocacy organizations in a country. 

One might expect people to feel more personal connection (and attribute higher moral status) to animals they don’t eat, and less personal connection towards animals they do eat. Indeed, previous studies have observed this was the case. Interestingly though, the present study found otherwise. For example, people in countries where eating goat is common reported just as much (or little) personal connection to goats as people in countries where goat-eating was not common. (Note: in this study, a country was considered ‘non-goat-eating’ if the annual per capita consumption of goat meat is less than 1kg or less than 1% of all meat consumed.) Similarly, feelings of personal connection towards pigs did not differ between pig-eating and non-pig-eating countries.

The researchers did, however, find that in India, the only country classified as ‘non-cow-eating,’ people had greater feelings of personal connection to cows than in all the other cow-eating countries analyzed. Hindus reported more personal connection to cows compared to non-Hindus — predictable because cows are regarded as holy in Hinduism. Similarly, religion also seemed to play a part in attitudes towards pigs for Muslims. They reported lower feelings of personal connection to pigs (which are considered impure in Islam) compared to non-Muslims.

The study also examined the strength of animal welfare legislation in a country compared to public attitudes toward animal welfare. Unsurprisingly, people showed less support for farmed animal welfare in countries with weaker animal welfare legislation, and more support where animal welfare laws are strong. What’s not clear is whether this is because (a) citizens’ attitudes affect the regulation of animal agriculture, or (b) animal welfare laws influence public attitudes — or both. Future research on the direction of influence would be useful, to help advocacy organizations decide whether to move limited resources towards influencing government policies or individual attitudes.

On average, people guessed that 50-70% of meat in their country was factory farmed. In 86% of these countries this was an underestimate, as the actual figure was 75% or more. The authors argue that this gap in knowledge about factory farming exposes an opportunity for increasing public education. In countries where people did not underestimate how much of their meat is factory farmed – the U.K., Netherlands, and Germany – the actual rates of factory farming are relatively low at 50% or less. These are some of the most progressive countries for animal rights, with relatively strong animal welfare laws and the largest markets for plant-based meat options in Europe.

The study also found no correlation between support for animal welfare and the number of animal advocacy organizations within a country, per capita. The key observation here is that some countries (including China, India, Brazil, and Indonesia) have few advocacy organizations compared to their level of public support for animal welfare. This opens up a major opportunity: animal advocates may be able to garner support, donations, and other resources from concerned citizens in order to influence government policymaking in meaningful, collaborative ways.

In sum, this paper offers a snapshot of how cultural, religious, and legislative contexts shape people’s underlying attitudes toward animals. These insights can inform more effective animal welfare policies and advocacy strategies, highlighting several opportunities for advocacy organizations to tailor their actions and maximize impact.