Public Acceptability Of Standard U.S. Animal Agriculture Practices
Background
Litigation has become an important tool for advocates working to improve the treatment of farmed animals in the U.S., 99% of whom are factory farmed, constituting over 10 billion animals. Factory farming subjects animals to practices that value efficiency and productivity over animal welfare, including confinement, mutilation, and killing. For example, in the U.S., almost all pigs have their tail amputated shortly after birth, almost all egg-laying chicks have their beaks partially amputated, approximately 97% of male beef cows are castrated typically without pain relief, approximately 60% of egg-laying hens live in battery cages, and almost all broiler chickens live in dense indoor sheds. Such practices — prevalent in factory farming and considered standard in animal agriculture industries — may constitute cruelty under the law.
In at least 37 states, anti-cruelty laws include exemptions for “commonly accepted” animal agriculture practices. However, some pieces of legislation don’t specify whether “commonly accepted” refers to industry standards or the views of the general public. This creates a legal gray area: if a practice that’s common within the industry is found to be unacceptable by the broader public, it could lose its exemption and therefore be considered a violation of anti-cruelty laws — potentially making the practice illegal. The ambiguity over whether “common” refers to industry or public acceptance leaves room for significant legal contestation. Therefore, U.S. polling data reflecting public opinion on the acceptability of standard farming practices could provide crucial evidence for these legal arguments.
While there is some research on U.S. public attitudes toward eating animals, there is a lack of up-to-date data specifically focused on U.S. public perceptions of standard farming practices, which are considered unacceptable by the general public in other countries. For example, Bryant Research (2022) found strong opposition in the U.K. to standard animal agriculture practices: 74% to 96% of the U.K. public found them unacceptable, depending on the particular practice.
This study aims to fill that gap by surveying U.S. adults to assess whether they view standard animal agriculture practices as acceptable. The findings will provide U.S. legal advocates with empirical data to support arguments that certain industry norms are not “commonly accepted” by the public and should therefore not be exempt from U.S. anti-cruelty laws.
Key Findings
- A clear majority of the U.S. public finds standard animal agriculture practices for pigs, cows, and chickens to be unacceptable, ranging from 71% to 85%, depending on the practice. Indeed, only a minority of people found standard practices to be acceptable, ranging from 7% to 16%.
- Confinement practices were the most unacceptable practices, including battery cages for laying hens (85%), gestation crates for pigs (84%), and cramped barns for broiler chickens (82%). Additionally, killing newborn male chicks who can’t lay eggs with a macerator was also considered widely unacceptable (84%). In contrast, killing pigs in gas chambers and killing chickens by live-shackle were some of the most acceptable practices (16% and 12% saying it’s acceptable, respectively), although the majority of the U.S. public still found them unacceptable (71% and 77% saying it’s unacceptable, respectively).
- Women/non-binary people and Democrats, on average, find standard animal agriculture practices more unacceptable than men and Republicans. Ranging from 1 to 5, or from “very acceptable” to “very unacceptable,” men (average score = 4.1) and Republicans (average = 4.0) rated standard practices as less unacceptable than women and non-binary people (average = 4.3) and Democrats (average = 4.4). These differences were statistically significant. Still, most people, regardless of their gender, age, race/ethnicity, region, income, or political affiliation, viewed the practices as unacceptable overall. Across all groups, the lowest average across all items was 4 (“somewhat unacceptable”) and the highest was 4.4 (between “somewhat unacceptable” and “very unacceptable”).
Recommendations
- Argue that standard animal agriculture practices constitute illegal cruelty because they’re not commonly accepted by the general public. U.S. states with agricultural legal exemptions that use an ambiguous phrase like “commonly accepted” can be legally challenged (e.g., anti-cruelty laws where it’s illegal to neglect an animal unless the abuse is “commonly accepted”: e.g., see Nebraska’s Livestock Animal Welfare Act, Section 54-907), as our results demonstrate that the U.S. public doesn’t find standard practices acceptable.
- Prioritize efforts to end confinement practices and chick culling. Because confinement practices (battery cages, gestation crates, and cramped barns) and chick culling were overwhelmingly opposed by the U.S. public (82% to 85%), advocates should continue to campaign for legislation that bans these practices and pressure retailers and producers to commit to cage-free housing for farmed animals and in-ovo sexing for egg-laying hens.
- Frame messages around public consensus. Because a majority of the U.S. public finds standard animal agriculture practices unacceptable, messaging should emphasize a broad public rejection of standard industry practices, thereby rebutting the stereotype that caring for animals is just a fringe “vegan” concern. This is aligned with the psychology of social norms and how leveraging public consensus can be an effective method to pressure policymakers and the industry to progress as the current food system isn’t aligned with mainstream values.
Applying These Findings
Additional resources from Faunalytics on public perception and related topics include:
- Support For Farmed Animal Welfare Legislation In Ten Key U.S. States
- Different Strokes For Different Folks: Comparing U.S. Groups’ Openness to Pro-Animal Actions
- Leveraging Social Norms For Animal Advocacy
- The Science Of Social Media Advocacy
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 Dr. Andrea Polanco (Faunalytics). Dr. Allison Troy (Faunalytics) reviewed and oversaw the work.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank several advocates who provided valuable input about the survey instrument, including Legal Impact for Chickens. In addition, we are grateful to an anonymous donor for their support.
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.
https://osf.io/vx5jz/
Citations:
Polanco, A., & Troy, A. (2025). Public Acceptability Of Standard U.S. Animal Agriculture Practices. Faunalytics. https://faunalytics.org/public-acceptability-of-standard-u-s-animal-agriculture-practices/
