Where The United Arab Emirates Stands On Protecting Farmed Animals

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. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) presents a particularly relevant context: like other high-income Gulf states, the country faces limited agricultural capacity while contending with high and growing food demand driven by tourism and a large expatriate population. Diets there tend to be high in red and processed meats, though plant-based alternatives are beginning to gain a presence.

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 427 adults between the ages of 18 and 65 living in the UAE. 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.

The most striking finding concerns policy. Nearly nine in 10 respondents (89%) 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 also notable: 58% said they would back an organization working to protect farmed animals and promote plant-based eating.

Current diets remain predominantly animal-based, with only around 11% of respondents identifying as reducetarian, pescatarian, vegetarian, or vegan. Yet attitudes toward plant-based eating are more encouraging. Two-thirds (66%) held positive overall views of plant-based diets, 57% were interested in learning more about plant-based proteins, and 45% said they’d be willing to substitute plant-based for animal protein. Support for cultivated meat was more modest (29%), though this is still a meaningful figure for a concept that’s largely unfamiliar in the region.

The barriers to change are substantial. Positive attitudes toward meat are nearly universal (98%), with large majorities agreeing that eating meat is natural (95%), normal (91%), necessary for health (91%), and delicious (96%). Entitlement beliefs are widespread as well, with 87% agreeing that eating meat is an unquestionable right, and 81% saying their religion teaches that farmed animals were created for human use. Speciesist views — beliefs that human interests should take precedence over those of farmed animals — appear at more moderate levels. Around two in five respondents (40.5%) agreed that humans should be allowed to use farmed animals as they wish, while 30% agreed that low meat prices are more important than farmed animal treatment.

On the facilitator side, about 60% of respondents believed farmed animals can feel positive emotions like excitement, happiness, and calmness, but only 43% agreed they can experience negative states like pain, fear, or boredom. This gap is notable: fewer than four in 10 respondents (36.5%) specifically agreed that farmed animals can feel pain. The researchers suggest this asymmetry may reflect the psychological discomfort of acknowledging animal suffering when eating animals is a cultural norm. Awareness of the broader harms of industrial animal agriculture — such as climate change, antibiotic resistance, pandemic risk, and worker exploitation — is moderate, with 47.5% recognizing these links.

Across all pathways to change, belief in animal sentience and awareness of systemic harms consistently emerge as the strongest predictors of greater openness — to dietary shifts, policy reforms, technological alternatives, and advocacy support. One particularly interesting result: people with positive attitudes toward meat are actually more likely to support legal protections for farmed animals, possibly because they prefer that animals be raised under better conditions as part of responsible consumption or for ethical reasons. Among those willing to support an advocacy organization, digital engagement is most popular. More than three-quarters (78%) would follow or like an organization on social media and 75% would share its content, while 72% would sign a petition, and around two-thirds said they’d donate (67%) or volunteer (65%).

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.

For advocates working in the Gulf region, this report offers a meaningful foundation. The near-universal support for farmed animal welfare legislation is a remarkable entry point, one that advocates can leverage when engaging policymakers, regulators, and certification bodies. The strong public expectation that government institutions, certification authorities, and religious bodies bear responsibility for educating people about farmed animal welfare opens a clear channel for institutional engagement and coalition-building.

The data also reveal a compelling messaging opportunity. Communicating about animal sentience and the broader harms of industrial animal agriculture — to climate, public health, and workers — could increase people’s willingness to make dietary changes. The fact that more respondents were willing to credit farmed animals with positive emotions than to acknowledge their capacity for pain and suffering is itself an important finding. More explicit communication about animal suffering, delivered in culturally sensitive, accessible ways, may be a meaningful lever for advocacy in this context.

Ultimately, this study suggests a readiness for deeper engagement on farmed animal welfare and plant-based diets among UAE residents. The movement has real room to grow its base in this region, and locally grounded, evidence-informed strategies will be essential to doing so.

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, as well as studies that contain graphic descriptions of animal cruelty or animal industries. We remain committed to bringing you reliable data, which is why any AI-generated work will always be reviewed by a human.