Strong Support For Farmed Animal Protection Despite Lebanon’s Economic Hardship

Industrial animal agriculture causes serious harm to farmed animals, the environment, public health, and agricultural workers. Understanding where the public stands on these issues is a crucial step toward building effective advocacy strategies. Yet comparable, locally grounded research has been nearly absent from the West Asia and North Africa region, where Lebanon presents a context distinctly different from its Gulf neighbors. Despite a Mediterranean climate with fertile soils, the country imports roughly 80% of its food, as domestic agricultural production has declined in recent years. Lebanon also hosts approximately 1.5 million Syrian and Palestinian refugees — around 30% of its population and the highest per-capita refugee concentration in the world — which has increased food demand and strained resources. At the same time, diets have been shifting away from the traditional Mediterranean pattern toward more Westernized, energy-dense foods, including more animal products, while recent economic and public health shocks have deepened food insecurity.

This study, conducted by Animetrics and the Middle East Vegan Society, aimed to fill this research gap by mapping public views on farmed animals and potential routes to reducing harm in the food system, including dietary change, policy reform, technological innovation, and advocacy.

The researchers adapted a preexisting international survey instrument to reflect the social and cultural context of the region, translating it into Arabic and reviewing it with native speakers and regional experts for clarity and appropriateness. Data were collected in September 2025 through the survey company Ipsos, using an online questionnaire completed by 389 adults between the ages of 18 and 65 living in Lebanon. Quota sampling by gender, age, and region helped ensure the sample broadly reflected these national demographics.

The survey examined three main dimensions:

1. Pathways to change such as dietary shifts and support for policies, technological innovation, and advocacy efforts;
2. Barriers to change such as meat attachment, entitlement beliefs, and speciesist views; and
3. Facilitators of change such as recognizing animal sentience and awareness of the broader harms of industrial animal agriculture.

Policy support is the standout finding. Roughly nine in 10 respondents (90.5%) agreed that farmed animals should have legal protections setting minimum standards for space, veterinary care, and access to food and water. Support for animal advocacy organizations is more moderate, with 51% saying they would back an organization working to protect farmed animals and promote plant-based eating.

Current diets remain predominantly animal-based: only around 9% of respondents identified as reducetarian, pescatarian, vegetarian, or vegan. Yet attitudes toward plant-based eating are encouraging. About 66% held positive overall views of plant-based diets, with the strongest agreement around their healthfulness (60%). However, plant-based diets were less often seen as practical (37%) or affordable (44%), revealing the economic realities that many in Lebanon are facing. In fact, the majority of respondents reported financial hardship, with 72% saying they had difficulty meeting their needs.

While over half (53%) were interested in learning more about plant-based proteins, only 37.5% said they’d be willing to substitute plant-based for animal protein. Support for cultivated meat was especially low at 14%, suggesting that this technological innovation may currently have limited relevance as an advocacy entry point in Lebanon.

The barriers to change are substantial. Positive attitudes toward meat are nearly universal (93%), with large majorities agreeing that eating meat is natural (86%), delicious (85%), and necessary for health (82.5%). Entitlement beliefs are also widespread: 75% agreed that eating meat is an unquestionable right. Close to two-thirds (63%) said their religion teaches that farmed animals were created for human use, though this justification is notably lower than in other countries like the United Arab Emirates or Qatar. Speciesist views are less prevalent, with only 20% agreeing that humans should be allowed to use farmed animals as they wish.

On the facilitator side, about 51% of respondents believed farmed animals can feel positive emotions like excitement, happiness, and calmness, and 47% agreed they can experience negative states like pain, fear, or boredom. The gap between these two figures is much smaller than was found for other countries in the region, suggesting that Lebanese respondents are somewhat more willing to acknowledge animal suffering even while eating meat. Awareness of the broader harms of industrial animal agriculture, such as climate change, antibiotic resistance, pandemic risk, biodiversity loss, and worker exploitation, is moderate, with about 41% recognizing these links overall.

Belief in animal sentience (and their positive emotional capacities in particular) and awareness of systemic harms emerge as strong predictors of more positive attitudes toward plant-based diets, greater willingness to substitute plant-based for animal protein, and higher levels of support for cultivated meat and animal advocacy organizations. Positive attitudes toward meat are paradoxically associated with more support for legal protections for farmed animals. The researchers suggest that this may reflect a preference for responsible consumption among people who enjoy eating meat. Religious justifications are linked to lower willingness to substitute plant-based protein and less support for advocacy organizations.

Among those willing to support an advocacy organization, lower-effort forms of engagement are clearly preferred: 71% would follow or like an organization on social media, 66% would share its content, and 64% would sign a petition. Willingness to donate (39%) or volunteer (46%) is notably lower, a pattern the researchers explicitly link to the economic strain experienced by most Lebanese respondents.

The sample size is modest, which means results for smaller demographic subgroups — particularly individual regions — should be interpreted with caution. As a self-reported survey, responses may be shaped by social desirability, and the cross-sectional design identifies associations rather than causes. The study also focused specifically on farmed land animals, so findings may not extend to aquatic animals used for food.

This report offers crucial insights for advocates working in the West Asia and North Africa region. Lebanon’s near-universal support for farmed animal welfare legislation is a remarkable foundation for policy-focused advocacy, particularly given the country’s severe economic and political pressures. Advocates engaging policymakers, certification bodies, and government institutions can credibly present legal protections as a majority demand.

The economic context shapes what’s possible in important ways. With most respondents reporting financial hardship, advocacy strategies that rely on donations or volunteering face real constraints. Digital engagement — awareness-raising, content-sharing, and online petitions — is likely to be the most accessible and effective starting point.

Finally, the report’s explicit recommendation that advocates emphasize the affordability and practicality of plant-based eating for Lebanese audiences is worth taking seriously: lower-income and lower-education respondents expressed more openness to plant-based eating than their more advantaged counterparts, possibly because plant-based options are perceived as a financially accessible alternative.

Advocates who have questions, comments, or would like help applying these findings are welcome to fill out this short feedback form from Animetrics. Animetrics offers support with understanding the results, adapting them to local contexts, and identifying relevant next steps.

This summary was drafted by a large language model (LLM) and closely edited by our Research Library Manager for clarity and accuracy. As per our AI policy, Faunalytics only uses LLMs to summarize very long reports (~50+ pages) that are not appropriate to assign to volunteers, studies that contain graphic descriptions of animal cruelty or animal industries, and research on niche topics. We remain committed to bringing you reliable data, which is why any AI-generated work will always be reviewed by a human.