Political Animals? How U.S. Voters Respond To Candidates Making Farmed Animal Policy Proposals
Background
In the U.S. alone, billions of chickens, pigs, cows, and other farmed animals are killed every year for food (Faunalytics, 2025). Despite unimaginable amounts of animal suffering and U.S. diets that exceed recommended guidelines for meat consumption, industrial animal agriculture is thriving (Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, n.d.; Blazejczyk, 2021). One of the most direct ways of changing the harmful practices of the animal agriculture industry is through government policy. Actions like strengthening animal welfare regulations, limiting subsidies to meat companies, or increasing investments in plant-based alternatives would have considerable and long-lasting benefits for animals.
Pro-animal policy change requires pro-animal politicians. While there are examples of U.S. politicians taking actions to help animals, there are still far too few policymakers working to reduce animal suffering (Klein, 2020; Vogeler, 2020). If politicians aren’t sure how certain policy proposals will affect their chances of getting elected, they may be unwilling to adopt pro-animal positions. Fears of electoral blowback aren’t entirely baseless (Saha, 2023), but this doesn’t mean that voters are opposed to any and all policies aimed at helping farmed animals.
Research that indicates which policies are popular or unpopular with the public can provide important insights for advocates about where there is already support for farmed animal welfare policies and where more advocacy is needed to improve messaging, campaigning, and advocacy. Alternatively, if certain policies that benefit the meat industry are unpopular, advocates and pro-animal politicians can use this information to shape campaign messaging against opponents who have promoted the expansion of industrial animal agriculture.
This study explores how specific farmed animal-related policy proposals affect the U.S. public’s vote choice and perceptions of hypothetical candidates for office. We conducted an experiment using a choice-based conjoint method to isolate the effects of these policy proposals on candidate preferences, while also considering a number of other candidate and participant characteristics.
Please remember: Individuals working on behalf of a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization in the United States are prohibited from engaging in “political campaign activity” or advocating in support of candidates or parties. For more information, please consult The Council of Nonprofits website, your employer, and legal counsel for guidance about allowable activities. The information provided here is for educational purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice, nor as an endorsement of any political candidate or party.
Key Findings
- Voters prefer candidates who support stronger welfare regulations for farmed animals. Of the eight policy proposals tested in this study, only candidates who proposed to “Strengthen farm animal regulations to reduce the number of animals on factory farms” performed better than candidates who proposed no changes to food policy. In fact, candidates who endorsed this policy position were expected to receive 61% of the vote share in a two-person race, all else equal. Among liberal voters, candidates who said they wanted to strengthen regulations for farmed animal welfare averaged 70% of the vote. These candidates received 58% of the vote among moderate voters and 55% of the vote among conservative voters. In other words, the U.S. public is very willing to reward candidates who push for improved conditions for farmed animals.
- Voters punish candidates who support the expansion of factory farming. The two policy proposals that resulted in the lowest vote shares for candidates were “Stop regulations that limit the number of animals on farms” and “Increase government subsidies to meat companies.” Candidates who endorsed these policies were expected to receive only about 40% of the vote in a two-person race and performed worse than candidates who proposed no food policy changes. Giving more taxpayer money to meat companies was unpopular across the political spectrum.
- Pro-animal candidates are often seen as more likable, more competent, and more empathetic. Candidates who proposed strengthening farmed animal welfare regulations were seen as more likable, while candidates who wanted to stop regulations that limit the number of animals on farms or increase subsidies to meat companies were seen as less likable. This policy was also associated with higher perceived levels of competence and empathy. Empathy scores were also higher for candidates who proposed an end to new factory farms and who wanted to reduce subsidies to meat companies.
- Voters are wary of cultivated meat. Candidates who proposed to “Increase public investment in cultivated meat (also known as cell-cultured meat)” performed poorly in terms of vote share, receiving only 45% of the vote, all else equal. This dropped to 40% among women and to 38% among conservatives. Candidates who endorsed a ban on “lab-grown meat” earned an expected 54% of the vote in a two-person race. This number rose to 57% among women and 62% among conservatives.
- A bipartisan coalition for farmed animals is possible. Liberals, moderates, and conservatives were all willing to reward candidates who proposed to “Strengthen farm animal regulations to reduce the number of animals on factory farms.” All three groups also withheld votes from candidates who proposed to “Increase government subsidies to meat companies.” These findings suggest that certain farmed animal-related policy proposals would likely receive support across the political spectrum.
- Future research should use experimental methods like choice-based conjoint to isolate cause and effect, as well as the impact of specific attributes. Self-reported data about a participant’s attitudes and beliefs can be a helpful tool. However, this information doesn’t always carry through to actual actions. Researchers working to refine political messaging to help animals should incorporate methods like choice-based conjoints that attempt to mimic reality. For example, these approaches could resemble messaging in the form of a speech or social media post, providing important information about how to make political communication as effective as possible. Experimental methods can also help isolate the effects of individual attributes in order to get a more accurate understanding of behavior.
Applying These Findings
Additional resources from Faunalytics that may be helpful to political advocacy include:
- Getting Started In Legislative Advocacy
- Effective Communication With Political Staffers: A Framework For Animal Advocates
- Bridging U.S. Conservative Values And Animal Protection
- Reforming Animal Agriculture Subsidies: A Guide for Advocates
- Support For Farmed Animal Welfare Legislation In Ten Key U.S. States
- The Economic Impacts Of A Plant-Based Transition: Exploring Two Growth Scenarios
- Six Tips for Talking About Clean Meat
We understand that reports like this have a lot of information to consider and that acting on research can be challenging. Faunalytics is happy to offer pro bono support to advocates and non-profit organizations who would like guidance applying these findings to their own work. Please visit our virtual Office Hours or contact us for support.
Behind The Project
Research Team
The project’s lead author was Research Scientist Zach Wulderk (Faunalytics). Dr. Sparsha Saha made significant contributions to the design of this project. Dr. Allison Troy (Faunalytics) reviewed and oversaw the work.
Acknowledgements
While our funders don’t influence the nature, purpose, or findings of our research, they do make our projects possible. We would like to thank an anonymous funder for their generous support of this study and all of our donors for their support of our work.
Research Terminology
At Faunalytics, we strive to make research accessible to everyone. We avoid jargon and technical terminology as much as possible in our reports. If you do encounter an unfamiliar term or phrase, check out the Faunalytics Glossary for user-friendly definitions and examples.
Research Ethics Statement
As with all of Faunalytics’ original research, this study was conducted according to the standards outlined in our Research Ethics and Data Handling Policy.
Let us know what you think!
We conduct research to help advocates like you, so we really value your input on what we’re doing well and how we can do better. Take the brief (less than 2min) survey below to let us know how satisfied you were with this report.
Citations:
Wulderk, Z., Saha, S., & Troy, A. (2025). Political Animals? How U.S. Voters Respond To Candidates Making Farmed Animal Policy Proposals. https://faunalytics.org/political-animals-how-u-s-voters-respond-to-candidates-making-farmed-animal-policy-proposals
