Español | 中文 | Português | हिंदी

Over 73 billion animals (excluding fishes) are slaughtered each year worldwide, and approaches to slaughter vary from region to region. For example, in many parts of the world, animals are stunned before slaughter to reduce suffering. Current science suggests that pre-slaughter stunning, when applied correctly, is a best practice to provide some level of welfare during the slaughter process. But in some parts of the world, animals are slaughtered while fully conscious, and the public perception of slaughter in different parts of the world is relatively unknown. In this study, researchers set out to gauge perceptions and knowledge about slaughter around the world.

To capture diverse perspectives, researchers surveyed 4,291 individuals in 14 countries between April and October 2021: Australia (250), Bangladesh (286), Brazil (302), Chile (252), China (249), India (455), Malaysia (262), Nigeria (298), Pakistan (501), Philippines (309), Sudan (327), Thailand (255), the U.K. (254), and the United States (291). The majority (89.5%) of the entire sample reported that they ate animals.

The survey consisted of 24 questions that were translated into languages suitable for the general population in each of the 14 countries. Researchers used two methods to administer the survey: In 11 countries, researchers randomly selected people in public settings to take the survey face-to-face; in three countries, researchers administered the survey online.

One key result of the study was that the majority of participants in all countries except Bangladesh agreed with the statement, “it matters to me that animals do not suffer during slaughter.” The researchers interpreted this result as evidence that compassion for animals is a nearly universal human trait.

Another commonality between countries was a lack of knowledge about slaughter. For example, about one-third of participants in Thailand (42%), Malaysia (36%), the U.K. (36%), Brazil (35%), and Australia (32%) answered that they didn’t know whether animals were fully conscious when slaughtered. Additionally, about 78% of participants in the U.S. were confident that animals weren’t stunned before slaughter even though pre-slaughter stunning is required by law and routinely practiced in the United States. The researchers emphasized that the general public places considerable trust in the food system (e.g., producers, retailers, and governments) despite widespread confusion about slaughter.  

Perceptions about slaughter varied from country to country. In each of the following aspects of slaughter, participants rated their comfort, belief, or preference on a scale from 1-7:

• Comfort in witnessing slaughter—Thailand had the lowest comfort (1.6); Pakistan had the highest (5.3).
• Belief that pre-slaughter stunning is better for the animal—Pakistan had the lowest belief (3.6); China had the highest (6.1).
• Belief that pre-slaughter stunning reduces the taste of the animal (i.e., the taste of the “meat”)—Australia had the lowest belief (2.1); Pakistan had the highest (5.2).
• Preference for eating animals that had been stunned before slaughter—Bangladesh had the lowest preference (3.3); Chile had the highest (5.9).
• Preference for eating animals that were killed using religious methods for slaughter (i.e., religious reasons for keeping the animal fully conscious at slaughter)—Australia had the lowest preference (2.6); Bangladesh had the highest (6.6).

The researchers suggested that the geographic differences in beliefs reflect complex cultural, religious, and economic factors. An example of a cultural factor is exposure to wet markets in China. An example of a religious factor is the interpretation of halal slaughter in Muslim-majority countries. One economic factor is developmental status: in countries with high poverty such as Bangladesh, concern for addressing human hunger may outweigh concern for animal welfare.

Overall, knowledge and perceptions about slaughter varied by locality—even though concern for reducing animals’ suffering during slaughter was common in 13 out of 14 studies.

This study provides a useful comparison of perceptions about animal slaughter across diverse world regions. However, the study had several limitations. First, the results could be affected by social desirability bias. Second, participant demographics may differ from countries’ overall populations. For example, 23% of Australian participants report that they did not eat animals, but only 12% of the total Australian population does not eat animals. A third limitation is that the study may have failed to capture sub-cultures and sub-regions (e.g., rural versus urban areas). And, fourth, there may have been issues with the survey translations because language related to animal welfare has subtle—but significant—differences.

Despite the limitations, this study shows that there’s a global need to educate people about slaughter. For effective education, animal advocates need to understand regional beliefs and build local collaborations. When connecting with locals, animal advocates can emphasize the common, shared belief that reducing animal suffering during slaughter matters. They can also pay particular attention to regional language related to animal welfare. Within this respectful, collaborative approach, animal advocates can provide accurate information about the reality of slaughter and stunning practices in specific locations and countries.