In this article, I collected some results from surveys that I thought might be relevant to animal advocates. Some of the results include:

In NFU survey (2017), most non-vegan and nonvegetarian U.K. respondents claimed that advertising that encouraged them to become vegan made them less likely to become vegan.
Many Americans seem to be unsure what exactly the term “plant-based diet” means (see Other U.S. surveys).
In one U.K. survey, vegetarianism and veganism were rated to be similarly ethical and environmental, but vegetarianism was rated to be significantly healthier, more convenient, more affordable, tastier, more enjoyable, more acceptable, more aspirational, more nutritious, and easier (Bryant (2019)).
29% of Americans and 14% of people in Great Britain see a vegan diet as healthier than a non-vegan diet
When asked whether animal welfare is important, most respondents say “yes” (Faunalytics BRIC Countries survey, Animal Welfare Institute survey list, Eurobarometer surveys). However, two surveys asked respondents to rank issues by importance, and then animal welfare was ranked low relative to other issues (Lusk et al. (2007), Ellingsen et al. (2015)).
In all countries where such a question was asked (U.S., China, Russia, Brazil, India), 50% or more of respondents said they would support a law that would require animals used for food to be treated more humanely (Faunalytics BRIC Countries survey). Other surveys also showed that most people may support various animal welfare laws (see Animal Welfare Institute surveys list, The Economist/YouGov Poll (2018), U.K. Animal welfare laws)
In U.S., Russia, Brazil, India, Mexico, and the U.K., most respondents agreed that animals have the ability to feel pain and discomfort (Faunalytics BRIC Countries survey, a poll in U.K., la Lama et al. (2017), Lusk et al. (2007)).

All these surveys should be interpreted very cautiously because answers were influenced by the social desirability bias, preceding questions, the framing of the question, and numerous other biases and factors.

Introduction

In this article, I collected some results from surveys that I thought might be relevant to animal advocates. I skipped surveys relating to animal product alternatives, I might cover them in a separate post. Unless noted otherwise, all the presented surveys claimed that they used a nationally representative sample. Most of the presented surveys are online panel surveys. Such surveys are imperfect. E.g. Szolnoki and Hoffmann (2013) claim that “better educated people with higher incomes are strongly over-represented in online studies". However, their results can still be informative.

Personally, when I read survey descriptions, I find that I don’t usually find narrative descriptions of the results all that useful, and I just want to see the exact question and the numbers. Hence, here I mostly just present results with little narration. However, I do discuss some caveats of interpreting the results that I feel are too important to be omitted. But note that I’m probably not aware of all the caveats myself, especially since I’m not an expert on surveys. I discuss the social desirability bias in more detail as I think it’s particularly important when interpreting many of these results.

If you have time, one way to better internalize these results is to read a question and then guess what the results will be. In most cases you can do that by scrolling down enough to see the question, but not the answers. In other cases you may need to cover a part of your screen to prevent yourself from seeing the results together with the question like this:

If you notice that your guesses keep improving, it’s a sign that you are learning something about how people think about animal issues, or at least about how they answer survey questions on the topic.

The list of surveys below is very much not exhaustive and I skip questions that I found less interesting in presented surveys. There may be some selection effects of what surveys I found, especially since part of my search for surveys was not systematic. Aslo, there could be some bias in which surveys are available to be viewed online. For example, if an animal advocacy organization did a survey that found that people don’t care about animals, they might not publish it. Also, people may create surveys in a way to encourage the kinds of answers they want to get.

In many cases, in the sources I cite you can see answer breakdowns by region, gender, politics, age, income level, or other factors. Examining these breakdowns might lead to some interesting conclusions. However, I haven’t examined them when writing this article.

Main caveats to interpreting these surveys

Social desirability bias

When interpreting the results of these surveys, it’s important to keep in mind that respondents may have been influenced by various biases. The bias that I am concerned with the most is the social desirability bias. As Lusk and Norwood (2009) explains:

“surveys on the [animal welfare] may be strongly influenced by the fact that animal welfare is a contentious issue for which there are strong social norms. For example, would a survey indicating that 90% of citizens are concerned about farm animal welfare be informative? Few people would admit they are unconcerned about the welfare of animals, so such a result is both unsurprising and uninformative. To concede that one does not care about animals would make one appear cruel. Similarly, to concede that the price of meat is more important than the welfare of farm animals would be tantamount to admitting selfishness, something few people are willing to do.”

Lusk and Norwood (2009) also conducted a survey where it found that “whereas only 15.6% of the public said they think low meat prices are more important than the well-being of farm animals, 67.5% said the average American thinks low meat prices are more important than the well-being of farm animals.” They argue that this latter result is a better indicator of how much Americans actually care about animal welfare because it avoids the social desirability bias. It further suggests that asking what other people (such as neighbors or the average American) think about animal welfare can produce more accurate survey results to questions that are susceptible to this bias. Most of the surveys below do not use this technique, or any other technique to reduce the effect of the social disability bias. Hence, their results should be interpreted with caution.

Low issue salience

Many of the surveys below ask respondents questions that they might not have a pre-existing opinion on. Respondents' answers to such questions could easily change with more information or deliberation (Farrar et. al. (2010), Wolf and Holian (2006)).

For example, consider a question “To what extent do you agree or disagree that chicken sold in the EU should be labelled with information about the welfare standards they were raised under?” It’s likely that few respondents have considered this issue before reading the question. If prompted to think about animal welfare, most respondents might agree with the statement. If prompted to think about the difficulties and costs of implementing such a labelling system, many of the same respondents might disagree with it. A simple and short argument may sway many respondents' opinion on the subject. Hence, respondents’ answers might not reflect how the public would respond if the issue became a widely-debated policy topic.

Other

Some other caveats are well-summarized by Honkanen and Olsen (2009):

There appears, however, to be some problems related to the measurement and interpretation of consumer animal welfare concern. People may express concern for animal welfare issues, but this concern is not reflected in their behaviour (Binnekamp and Ingenbleek, 2006; Hoogland et al., 2005). Grunert and Juhl (1995) also found that there is a gap between a positive environmental attitude and behaving accordingly. Bennett et al. (2002) found that 76 per cent of a student sample were concerned about farm animals being mistreated, but only 34 per cent avoided products where production methods might cause suffering for the animals (e.g. battery‐cage eggs). Furthermore, 83 per cent agreed that it is wrong to cause pain, injury or stress to farm animals. But when this pain, injury or stress was related to food production, only 61 per cent agreed. The study found, however, that people were prepared to pay more for free range eggs, but mainly because they seem to believe that free range eggs have better quality than conventional eggs. The finding that animal welfare is used as an indicator of sensory quality and food safety has been confirmed by other studies (Harper and Makatouni, 2002; Phan‐Huy and Fawaz, 2003). Some research shows that consumers do not want to seek detailed information about animal welfare issues (Velde et al., 2002) – it would be extremely uncomfortable to think about husbandry practices and eating meat (or fish).

U.K.

Lusk et al. (2007)

Lusk et al. (2007) was a nationwide telephone survey conducted from June to July 2007 with a representative sample of 1,019 U.S. households.

Respondents were first asked questions like “Which issue are you more concerned with, the well-being of farm animals or the financial well-being of U.S. farmers?” A relative importance of each issue was determined based on the answers (see the source for details):

Human Poverty - 23.95
U.S. Health Care System - 23.03
Food Safety - 21.75
The Environment - 13.91
Financial Well-Being of U.S. Farmers - 8.16
Food Prices - 5.06
Well-Being of Farm Animals - 4.15

The paper claims that “importance scores can be interpreted as follows: if a large group of people were asked to state which of the 7 issues was most important, 23.95% would say human poverty, 23.03% would say U.S. Health Care, 21.75% would say food safety, and so on.” As you can see, respondents thought that the well-being of farm animals was less important than other listed issues.

Using similar questions and methodology, the paper also produced a ranking of how respondents see the relative importance of each farm animal welfare factor:

receive ample food and water - 38.43
receive treatment for injury and disease - 29.05
are allowed to exhibit normal behaviors - 8.01
are allowed to exercise outdoors - 7.95
are protected from being harmed by other animals - 5.90
are provided shelter at a comfortable temperature - 4.43
are allowed to socialize with other animals - 2.76
are raised in a way to keep prices low - 1.75
are provided comfortable bedding - 1.72

Respondents were also asked if they agree with the following statement:

Respondents were also asked if they agree with the following statement:

If a new technology were created that could either eliminate the suffering of 1 human or the suffering of X farm animals, it should be used to eliminate the suffering of the 1 human. The value of X varied randomly across survey respondents. See results below.

X=	% Who Agree	% Who Disagree
1	86%	9%
10	80%	13%
50	71%	19%
100	61%	27%
500	69%	20%
1,000	62%	18%
5,000	51%	35%
10,000	50%	34%

The results suggest that the majority of Americans see eliminating the suffering of a single human as more important than eliminating the suffering of thousands of animals. However, I think that the results rather overstate this finding due to scope insensitivity. Note that the percent who agree and disagree may not sum to one because some could answer “neither agree nor disagree” or “don’t know”.

Respondents were also asked if they agree with various other statements. The results are summarized below:

Questions marked with a star (*) had sample sizes of about 500 instead of 1,000. That’s because respondents were divided into two groups and asked similar questions with different phrasing. E.g., roughly half of the respondents were asked if they agree that “Housing pregnant sows in crates is humane”, while the other half were asked if they agree that “Housing pregnant sows in creates for their protection from other hogs is humane.” This allowed comparisons between different phrasings of similar questions.

MFA broiler surveys

MFA 2017 U.S. Broiler Chicken Welfare Survey Survey asked an online panel of 500 respondents if they think that restaurants, grocers and other food companies should require their chicken suppliers to follow each requirement listed in the Better Chicken Commitment. The results are summarized below:

Note that each of these requirements were defined in the survey. See the survey for definitions. At the beginning of the survey respondents were also made aware that “the implementation of the different handling and processing approaches identified in the questions to follow could result in a slight increase to the cost of chicken to consumers.”

The same survey was also conducted in Canada with even more positive results

YouGov surveys

YouGov is an international research data and analytics group that shares opinion data which is derived from an online panel. If you press on the links, in most cases you will be able to see answer breakdowns by region, gender, politics, age, and income level.

How willing would you be to eliminate meat from your diet in order to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change? (2019)
- I would be willing to eliminate meat from my diet entirely - 16%
- I would be willing to eat less meat, but I’m not willing to eliminate it from my diet entirely - 42%
- I’m not willing to reduce the amount of meat I eat - 28%
- Don’t know - 8%
- N/A - I already don’t eat meat - 6%

This question makes it seem like this is some sort of a hypothetical situation when it isn’t. It would be interesting to ask respondents who say they would be willing to eliminate/reduce their meat consumption why they are not already doing it, perhaps after presenting some facts about how it would help and how to do it. Note that very many people are unaware that eating meat contributes to climate change (Happer and Wellesley (2019)).

Do you think animals have rights?
- Yes - 74%
- No - 16%
- Not sure - 10%
How much, if at all, do you care about animal rights?
- I care a lot - 38%
- I care somewhat - 39%
- I don't care very much - 12%
- I don't care at all - 7%
- Don't know - 5%
In general, do you think a vegan diet is healthier or less healthy than a non-vegan diet? (2018)
- A vegan diet is healthier than a non-vegan diet - 29%
- A vegan diet is less healthy than a non-vegan diet - 32%
- Don't know - 39%

The exact same question was asked in Great Britain, where 14% thought that it is healthier, 45% that it is less healthy, and 41% answered “Don’t know”.

Real fur is considered by many to be cruel. Fake fur is often made from non-renewable plastics, which can take hundreds of years to biodegrade. Which do you think is worse? (2018)
- Real fur - 16%
- Fake fur - 21%
- Both equally bad - 41%
- Neither - 10%
- Don't know - 12%
Do you think that the idea of zoos is humane or inhumane? (2017)
- Humane - 45%
- Inhumane - 22%
- Not sure - 33%
The US military will accommodate kosher, halal, and vegetarian diets for troops in the field, but doesn’t accommodate vegan diets. Should the US military provide vegan options for soldiers? (2019)
- Yes, they should - 58%
- No, they should not - 21%
- Don’t know - 21%

Perhaps vegan advocates could campaign to introduce vegan meals for the U.S. military? Based on the survey, it seems that such a campaign could receive widespread public support. The U.S. military has about 1.3 million active-duty troops, so the scale could be significant. Note that non-vegan troops may also sometimes choose vegan meals. Also, the military accommodating a vegan diet could make it seem like veganism is a more legitimate life option in many troop’s eyes. More troops going vegan could be good for the vegan movement because it goes against some negative stereotypes about vegans and people in the U.S. seem to respect the troops a lot. How promising such a campaign could be may depend on the results of the next presidential election. More on the topic of vegan meals in the military here, here, here and here. Note that I have spent very little time thinking about this and I don’t really know what I’m talking about.

The Economist/YouGov Poll (2018)

Sample: 1,500 U.K. Adults

Margin of Error: ±3.3%

29. One state has just passed a law that requires farmers to provide more space for egg-laying hens, breeding pigs and calves raised for veal. This will likely make farm animals more comfortable, while also increase the price of eggs and meat. Do you think laws like this to promote animal welfare are a good or a bad idea?

Definitely a good idea - 25%
Probably a good idea - 25%
Neither a good nor a bad idea - 18%
Probably a bad idea - 10%
Definitely a bad idea - 8%
Not sure - 14%

30. An animal-rights group is suing a horse’s owner on behalf of the horse, claiming abuse. In general, people who mistreat animals can only be prosecuted by the government, and only if they are believed to violate animal welfare laws. Do you think animals should or should not have the right to legal representation in the same way people do?

Definitely should - 16%
Probably should - 22%
Probably should not - 20%
Definitely should not - 20%
Not sure - 22%

34. Over the past year, have you made an effort to reduce your consumption of meat?

Yes - 27%
No - 62%
I don’t eat meat - 3%
Prefer not to say - 8%

35. What motivated you to reduce or eliminate your consumption of meat? Check any that apply. [Asked of those who have reduced or eliminated consumption of meat]

I am worried about my impact on the environment - 32%
I am worried about my health - 67%
I am worried about how much animals suffer - 28%
Religious grounds - 6%
Other - 10%

Looking at a similar question from the Eating better survey, it seems that compared to people in Great Britain, Americans who are reducing or eliminating their meat consumption are much more likely to be motivated by worries about their health.

36. Over the past year, have you made an effort to reduce your consumption of animal-based food products other than meat, such as milk, cheese or eggs?

Yes - 14%
No - 77%
I don’t eat any animal-based foods - 3%
Prefer not to say - 7%

37. What motivated you to reduce your consumption of animal-based food products other than meat? Check any that apply. [Asked of those who have reduced or eliminated consumption of animal-based food products]

I am worried about my impact on the environment - 30%
I am worried about my health - 69%
I am worried about how much animals suffer - 30%
Religious grounds - 4%
Other - 5%

38. Do you personally identify as vegetarian or vegan?

Vegetarian - 5%
Vegan - 2%
I used to be a vegetarian or a vegan, but no longer am - 7%
I am not and have never been a vegetarian or a vegan - 86%

Note that this is not a good source for the rate of veganism and vegetarianism in the U.S. Real rates of strict dietary vegetarians and vegans are much smaller (Šimčikas (2018)). Nevertheless, it’s interesting that the results above disagree with Faunalytics (2014) finding that there are five times more former vegetarians and vegans than current vegetarians and vegans in the U.S.

The Economist/YouGov Poll (2020)

Sample: 1,500 U.K. Adult citizens

Conducted: January 11 - 14, 2020

Margin of Error: ±2.7%

71. How would you classify your diet?

Vegan - 2%
Flexitarian - 8%
Vegetarian - 5%
Omnivore/meat eater - 68%
Pescatarian - 3%
Other - 14%

72. When did you first adopt a diet?

[Asked of those who eat a vegan, vegetarian, or pescatarian diet]

Less than 6 months ago - 14%
6 months to a year ago - 13%
One to 2 years ago - 22%
Between 2 and 5 years ago - 16%
More than 5 years ago - 35%

Note that some people may adopt a diet, then drop it, then adopt it again. Hence, this is not the same as asking “How long have you been keeping this diet?”

73. What best describes the reason you became ?

[Asked of those who eat a vegan, vegetarian, or pescatarian diet]

Concern about animal welfare - 29%
Concern about climate change -13%
To have a healthier diet and/or to lose weight - 39%
Because it is trendy - 7%
Other - 11%

74. Over the past 12 months would you say you are eating: [Asked of those who eat a flexitarian, omnivore/meat eater, or other diet]

More meat - 12%
Less meat - 25%
About the same amount of meat - 63%

75. What best describes the reason you are eating less meat: [Asked of those who are eating less meat]

Concern about animal welfare - 9%
Concern about climate change - 10%
To have a healthier diet and/or to lose weight - 59%
Because it is trendy - 2%
Other - 20%

81. Over the next 12 months how, if at all, are you planning to change your diet?

Become vegan - 1%
Become flexitarian - 2%
Become vegetarian - 2%
Become a meat eater / omnivore - 2%
Become pescatarian - 1%
Eat more meat - 4%
Eat less meat - 17%
Buy organic meat, only - 3%
Other - 6%
No change - 65%

82. What best describes the reason you became are likely to change your diet over the next 12 months?

Concern about animal welfare - 10%
Concern about climate change - 11%
To have a healthier diet and/or to lose weight - 65%
Because it is trendy - 7%
Other - 7%

Gallup Poll Social Series

Which of these statements comes closest to your view about the treatment of animals

	2003	2008	2015
Animals deserve the exact same rights as people to be free from harm and exploitation	25%	25%	32%
Animals deserve some protection from harm and exploitation, but it is appropriate to use them for the benefit of humans	71%	72%	62%
Animals don’t need much protection from harm and exploitation since they are just animals.	3%	3%	3%

In general, how concerned are you about the way each of the following types of animals is currently treated in the U.S. today – very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned? How about -- ? (2015)

The 2015 survey had a random sample of ~500 and was conducted via telephone interviews.

Nutrition and Food Gallup poll (2019)

Are you willing to pay a lot more, a little more or no more for products that are labeled as [RANDOM ORDER] than you would pay for a product without that label?

	A lot more	A little more	No more	Do not buy	No opinion
Locally grown	21%	57%	16%	6%	<0.5%
Natural	12%	52%	26%	10%	<0.5%
Certified humane, cage free or dolphin safe	12%	46%	19%	23%	<0.5%
Organic	11%	51%	22%	16%	<0.5%
Made using sustainable methods	8%	46%	24%	21%	<0.5%

Thinking now about your diet, how often would you say you eat meat such as beef, chicken or pork -- frequently, occasionally, rarely or never?
- Frequently - 67%
- Occasionally - 23%
- Rarely - 7%
- Never - 3%
- No opinion - <0.5%
In the past 12 months, have you been eating more meat, less meat, or about the same amount?
- More - 5%
- Same amount - 72%
- Less - 23%
[Asked of those who are eating less meat or who rarely or never eat meat] Would you say each of the following is a major reason, a minor reason, or not a reason why you [have been eating less meat / rarely eat meat / do not eat meat]?

	Major reason	Minor reason	Not a reason
Concern about your health	70%	20%	10%
Concern about the environment	49%	21%	30%
Concern about food safety	43%	22%	34%
Concern about animal welfare	41%	24%	35%
Convenience because other family members [are eating less meat/rarely eat meat/do not eat meat]	16%	24%	59%
You see a lot of other people doing it	15%	19%	64%
Religious reasons	12%	17%	72%

Please tell me whether you have or have not been doing each of the following as a way to reduce the amount of meat that you eat? [random order, asked of those who are eating less meat or who rarely or never eat meat]

	Yes	No	No opinion
Eat smaller portions of meat	77%	23%	--
Alter recipes to use less meat by substituting vegetables or other ingredients for some meat	71%	29%	<0.5%
Eliminate meat entirely from some meals	69%	31%	--
Eat meat replacements such as plant-based burgers and sausages	36%	64%	<0.5%

In terms of your eating preferences, do you consider yourself to be a vegetarian, or not?

	Yes	No	No opinion
2018 Jul 1-11	5%	94%	<0.5%
2012 Jul 9-12	5%	94%	<0.5%
2001 Jul 19-22	6%	94%	<0.5%
1999 Sep 23-26	6%	94%	-

It’s interesting that even within the same survey more respondents claim to be vegetarians than to “eat meat such as beef, chicken or pork”. Perhaps this is because some people who eat meat rarely or only when it would be thrown away otherwise also call themselves vegetarians. This may have been impacted by the survey asking about eating preferences. It’s also interesting that in this survey the percentage of self-identified vegetarians has not been increasing.

In terms of your eating preferences, do you consider yourself to be vegan, or not?

	Yes	No	No opinion
2018 Jul 1-11	3%	95%	2%
2012 Jul 9-12	2%	91%	7%

Other survey lists

Below are some other lists of surveys related to animals welfare in the U.S. I excluded surveys in these from my list to avoid repetition. I think that most surveys in these lists are just as interesting and useful as surveys I list in this article.

Animal Welfare Institute list presents surveys that show that Americans claim that they:
- care about how farm animals are raised,
- support regulating farm animal care,
- are willing to pay more for food that is “humanely raised”,
- think that certain food labels confuse and mislead shoppers.
ASPCA list presents surveys that show that Americans claim that they:
- think that it’s important that meat chickens are raised humanely (2014 Chicken Survey, 2013 Broiler Chicken Survey),
- support undercover investigations and oppose ag-gag laws (2012 Ag-Gag Survey),
- think that the government should support higher welfare farming,
- support animal welfare labelling.
The Faunalytics Animal Tracker was a longitudinal survey that monitored a range of opinions and behaviors relating to animals and animal advocacy that ran between 2008 and 2019. I think that the best way to explore results is by using this graphing tool. We can see that the survey results were fairly consistent throughout the years for almost all of the questions, indicating that there has been little change in opinions relating to animals between 2008 and 2019. Some example results from the 2019 survey:
- 54% agree that farm animals deserve the same consideration as pets and other animals
- 68% somewhat/strongly support for the animal protection movement’s goal to minimize and eventually eliminate all forms of animal cruelty and suffering.
- 72% say that protection of animals is somewhat/very important when “buying food (i.e., meat, dairy, eggs)”, 64% say the same about “buying consumer products”, and 56% say the same about “voting for a political candidate”.
Šimčikas (2018) - a list and analysis of surveys on rates of vegetarianism and veganism in the U.S. which suggests that the percentage of strict dietary vegetarians in the U.S. hasn’t been increasing much. It has been criticised here.

Other U.S. surveys

2019 Food & Health Survey
- Q13: Which of the following best matches how you would define a “plant-based diet”? Please select only one answer. [Only asked of those who have heard of plant-based diets, n=742]

Since consumers seem to be split on what the term means, we might want to take care when using it, and to perhaps define it in some cases. It’s unclear whether the sample was representative.

Jensen (2013)
- Q23 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)?
  - Favorable - 36%
  - Unfavorable - 39%
  - Not sure - 25%
- Q24 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Humane Society?
  - Favorable - 70%
  - Unfavorable - 14%
  - Not sure - 15%
Sentience Institute survey - it has many surprising results but I will not go into detail of describing this survey because there is a forthcoming re-analysis of it by Rethink Priorities.

Europe

Eurobarometer surveys

Eurobarometer surveys below examined opinions on animal welfare in each EU country. Figures below are averages for all surveyed countries, weighted by population. Links contain corresponding statistics for each country.

Note that each question had to be translated into the language of each country. It’s possible that in some cases differences in translation wording affected the results.

442: Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare (2015, 28 EU countries)
- QB2. In your opinion, how important is it to protect the welfare of farmed animals?
  - Very important - 57%
  - Somewhat important - 37%
  - Not very important - 3%
  - Not at all important - 1%
  - Don't know - 2%
- QB3. Do you believe that in general the welfare of farmed animals in (OURCOUNTRY) should be better protected than it is now?
  - Yes, certainly - 44%
  - Yes, probably - 38%
  - No, probably not - 10%
  - No, certainly not - 2%
  - Don't know - 6%
- QB5. There is currently no legal obligation in the EU to care for animals used for commercial purposes. To what extent do you agree or disagree that there should be an EU law obliging any person using animals for commercial purposes in the EU to care for them?
  - Totally agree - 54%
  - Tend to agree - 35%
  - Tend to disagree - 5%
  - Totally disagree - 2%
  - Don’t know - 4%
- QB6. Some people believe that the welfare of farmed animals is primarily a matter for consumers when buying a product and should thus be handled by businesses. Others believe it is a matter for all citizens, which should be regulated by the public authorities. Which of these is closest to your view?
  - The welfare of farmed animals is primarily a matter for consumers, to be handled by businesses - 12%
  - The welfare of farmed animals is a matter for all citizens, to be regulated by public authorities - 40%
  - Animal welfare should be handled jointly by businesses and by public authorities - 43%
  - None (SPONTANEOUS) - 1%
  - Don't know - 4%
- QB7. Would you be willing to pay more for products sourced from animal welfare-friendly production systems?
  - No, you are not ready to pay more - 35%
  - Yes, you would be ready to pay up to 5% more - 35%
  - Yes, you would be ready to pay 6% to 10% more - 16%
  - Yes, you would be ready to pay 11% to 20% more - 5%
  - Yes, you would be ready to pay more than 20% more - 3%
  - It depends on the price of the product (SPONTANEOUS) - 4%
  - Don’t know - 2%
- QB8. Would you like to have more information about the conditions under which farmed animals are treated in (OUR COUNTRY)?
  - Yes, certainly - 30% (+11% compared to the 2005-2006 survey)
  - Yes, probably - 34% (-5%)
  - No, probably not - 20% (-6%)
  - No, certainly not - 13% (no change)
  - Don’t know - 3% (no change)
- QB9. Products sourced from animal welfare-friendly production systems may carry an identifying label. Do you look for these labels when buying such products?
  - Yes, most of the time - 25%
  - Yes, some of the time - 27%
  - No, very rarely - 14%
  - No, never - 23%
  - You didn’t know these labels existed (SPONTANEOUS) - 10%
  - Don’t know - 1%
- QB10. Do you think there is currently a sufficient choice of animal welfare friendly food products in shops and supermarkets?
  - Yes, certainly - 10% (-2% compared to the 2005-2006 survey)
  - Yes, probably - 28% (-5%)
  - No, probably not - 31% (+6%)
  - No, certainly not - 16% (+3%)
  - Don’t know - 15% (-2%)
- QB13. The EU is working with other countries to build a common understanding on internationally recognised animal welfare standards. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?
  - 1. Imported products from outside the EU should respect the same animal welfare standards as those applied in the EU
    - Totally agree - 62%
    - Tend to agree - 31%
    - Tend to disagree - 3%
    - Totally disagree - 1%
    - Don’t know - 3%
  - 2. It is important to establish animal welfare standards that are recognised across the world
    - Totally agree - 55%
    - Tend to agree - 35%
    - Tend to disagree - 5%
    - Totally disagree - 2%
    - Don’t know - 3%
  - 3. The EU should do more to promote a greater awareness of animal welfare internationally
    - Totally agree - 51%
    - Tend to agree - 38%
    - Tend to disagree - 5%
    - Totally disagree - 2%
    - Don’t know - 4%

I think that the answers to QB2, QB7, QB8, and QB9 were strongly influenced by the social desirability bias. Answers to other questions might have been different if questions included any discussion of costs or trade-offs. Answers to QB8 and QB10 were compared with the results from a 2005-2006 survey and it can be seen that there is some positive trend. E.g., more people feel that there is an insufficient choice of animal welfare friendly products, even though the choice of such products has probably increased between the two surveys.

229: Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals - questions are similar to the ones above
- Wave 1 (2005, 25 EU countries),
- Wave 2 (2007, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Turkey).
270: Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare (2006, 25 EU countries)
- QC9. Would you be willing to change your usual place of shopping in order to be able to buy more animal welfare friendly food products?
  - Yes, certainly - 23%
  - Yes, probably - 39%
  - No, probably not - 19%
  - No, certainly not - 9%
  - Don’t know - 10%
- QC11. Do you think that current labels of food products allow you to identify those products sourced from animal welfare friendly production systems?
  - Yes, certainly - 7%
  - Yes, probably - 27%
  - No, probably not - 32%
  - No, certainly not - 23%
  - Don’t know - 11%
- QC15 From the following list, what would be for you the main reasons why you would buy food products produced in a more animal friendly way (e.g. free-range systems)? [maximum two answers were allowed]
  - They are healthier - 51%
  - They are better quality products - 48%
  - They come from healthier animals - 43%
  - They taste better - 34%
  - They help farmers that treat their animals better - 27%
  - They come from happier animals - 23%
  - They are better for the environment - 17%
  - They are good value for money - 14%
  - They are better for society - 11%
  - None of the above (SPONTANEOUS) - 2%
  - Do not buy these products (SPONTANEOUS) - 3%
  - Don’t know - 4%

Eurogroup broiler chicken survey (2019)

This 2019 online survey was commissioned by Eurogroup For Animals and had a sample of 7,090 adults in seven European countries: U.K., France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and Belgium (>1,000 respondents in each country). In the source you can see a breakdown of answers by country, age, gender, diet type, etc.

Q8. How often, if at all, do you think that chickens raised for meat in industrial farms in the EU are subject to the following conditions?

Statements	Always	Often	Sometimes	Rarely	Never	Don't know
Have outdoor access	8%	15%	34%	30%	6%	7%
Live in overcrowded conditions	18%	48%	20%	5%	3%	7%
Suffer from poor health due to rapid growth	12%	41%	27%	6%	3%	11%
Suffer mutilations	9%	36%	28%	9%	4%	15%
Are kept in cages	14%	49%	22%	6%	3%	7%
Grow up on the same farm where they were born	14%	30%	23%	15%	4%	14%

Q9. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the welfare of chickens raised for meat should be better protected than it is now?
- Strongly agree - 55%
- Tend to agree - 35%
- Tend to disagree - 4%
- Strongly disagree - 1%
- Don't know - 6%
Q11. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the government should improve the laws setting the welfare standards of chickens raised for meat?
- Strongly agree - 49%
- Tend to agree - 37%
- Tend to disagree - 5%
- Strongly disagree - 1%
- Don't know - 7%
Q13. To what extent do you agree or disagree that chicken sold in the EU should be labelled with information about the welfare standards they were raised under?
- Strongly agree - 55%
- Tend to agree - 33%
- Tend to disagree - 5%
- Strongly disagree - 1%
- Don't know - 7%

Eurogroup / CIWF fish welfare survey (2018)

This online survey had a sample of 9,047 adults in U.K., Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Sweden, The Netherlands, and Czech Republic (>1,000 in each country). I encourage people interested in fish welfare to read the full survey summary here. I also analyzed some of the results here. Some highlights from the survey:

90% think that the welfare of fish should be protected to the same or greater extent than the welfare of other animals we eat (Q11),
79% think that salmon welfare should be better protected than it is now (Q5),
63% think that fish are sentient, 73% think that fish can feel pain (Q9),
Respondents who eat fish think that the benefits of choosing 'higher welfare' fish products include it being high quality (50%), sustainable (41%), better taste (40%), better freshness (39%), safe to consume (38%), and more nutritious (23%) (Q14),
78% would you like to see information about the fish's welfare on the label of all fish products (Q15),
85% of respondents who eat fish claimed that they would be willing to pay more for a 'higher welfare' version of the same fish product. The average premium they were willing to pay was about 27% (Q17).

Project Farming Survey (2012, Italy)

This was a face-to-face survey of 1,043 adults across Italy.

Q3. There will be new legislation on the keeping of female pigs or “sows” (sow stall ban). The sow stall ban will ban the use of sow stalls (restrictive metal enclosures in which pregnant pigs are kept) for the majority of a sow’s pregnancy. Many farms in Italy will not comply with the ban on sow stalls, keeping their sows caged. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following?
- I believe it is acceptable for some farmers to not comply with the legislation that bans the use of sow stalls
  - Strongly agree - 7%
  - Tend to agree - 7%
  - Neither agree nor disagree - 15%
  - Tend to disagree - 19%
  - Strongly disagree - 50%
  - Don’t Know - 3%
- I worry some farmers will keep sows in sow stalls
  - Strongly agree - 45%
  - Tend to agree - 25%
  - Neither agree nor disagree - 15%
  - Tend to disagree - 6%
  - Strongly disagree - 7%
  - Don’t Know - 2%
- I would not buy any meat, ham or continental meat from pigs if I knew that the sows had been kept in sow stalls [asked only to meat purchasers]
  - Strongly agree - 35%
  - Tend to agree - 23%
  - Neither agree nor disagree - 23%
  - Tend to disagree - 8%
  - Strongly disagree - 7%
  - Don’t Know - 3%
Q4. The majority of pigs reared in Italy have tails cut off without anaesthetic. If you knew of a farm or a brand that did not cut pigs tails off, would you be more or less likely to buy their meat, or would it make no difference?
- A lot more likely - 40%
- A little more likely - 22%
- Makes no difference 16% A little less likely - 7%
- A lot less likely - 11%
- Don’t know - 4%

I think that answers to some of these questions were strongly impacted by the social desirability bias.

Other surveys

Johansson-Stenman (2018) (Sweden)
- Society can reduce animal as well as human suffering through various, usually costly, measures. To be able to prioritize, we need to know how great a weight society should place on reducing suffering in an animal (such as a cow) compared with reducing an equal amount of suffering in a human. Which of the following statements is most in accordance with your opinion regarding the weight that should be given to animal suffering in public decisions?
  - Animal suffering should not count at all in public decisions - 0.8%
  - Animal suffering should not count per se. However, some people suffer when knowing that animals suffer, and this should be taken into account in public decisions - 3.2%
  - Animal suffering should be taken into account to a certain extent in public decisions, even when no human beings suffer when knowing that animals suffer. However, animal suffering should be given much less weight than human suffering - 13.2%
  - Animal suffering should be taken into account to a fairly high degree in public decisions, even when no human beings suffer when knowing that animals suffer. However, animal suffering should be given somewhat less weight than human suffering - 30.3%
  - Animal suffering should be taken into account to a degree equal to human suffering in public decisions, even when no humans suffer when knowing that animals suffer - 49.3%
  - Animal suffering should be taken into account to a very high degree in public decisions, even when no human beings suffer when knowing that animals suffer. Animal suffering should be given more weight than human suffering - 3.2%

Weathers et al. (2020) explores answers to a similar question asked to U.S. respondents. In both cases, I’d be hesitant to interpret these results literally. I think that respondents didn’t realize how different the world would be if animal suffering was taken into account to an equal degree, and that this would mean sacrificing many comforts for humans. In my opinion, more concrete tradeoffs, like the ones in Lusk et al. (2007), reveal preferences better than very abstract questions like these.

Ellingsen et al. (2015) (2010, Norway)
- We face many important challenges in this country that are neither easy nor cheap to solve. Here you see some of these challenges listed. For each of them, please indicate whether you think society should spend more money, the same amount of money, or less money on that particular challenge

Who do you think is responsible for ensuring that Norwegian farmed fish have good living conditions?
- The producer/fish farmer by making living conditions in the production facilities sufficiently good - 49%
- The Government/Food Safety Authority or other public entity by developing regulations for fish farming and by supervising production facilities - 39.5%
- The consumer through his or her choice of products in the store - 9.4%
- Grocery stores/supermarket chains through their contracts with producers and distributors - 2.2%
Grimsrud et al. (2012) (2010, Norway) - respondents claimed that they were willing to pay an increased tax for farmed Atlantic salmon that is selected for traits related to fish welfare.
Pohjolainen (2015) describes a 2010 survey in Finland which had the following relevant results:

I analyzed some more survey on attitudes towards fish in How much do Europeans care about fish welfare?

Great Britain

Note that Great Britain is also covered by surveys in the Europe section. I gave Great Britain a separate section because I found many surveys that were conducted in this region.

National Farmers' Union / YouGov survey (2017)

Sample Size: 2023 U.K. Adults (18+)

1. Thinking about your eating habits, would you describe yourself as…

A pescatarian - 9%
A vegetarian - 6%
A vegan - 1%
None of these - 84%

2. Have you seen or heard any advertising aimed at encouraging you to become vegan? [This question was not asked to vegans or vegetarians; n=1870]

Yes, seen and/or heard - 16%
No, haven’t seen or heard - 84%

3. Thinking about the advertising you have seen/heard, has this made you more or less likely to become vegan? [This question was asked to non-vegans and nonvegetarians who have seen/heard advertising; n=321]

Much more likely to become vegan - 2%
Slightly more likely to become vegan - 24%
Slightly less likely to become vegan - 14%
Much less likely to become vegan - 37%
Don’t know - 23%

4. **2 images of 2 vegan adverts were shown** [I haven’t been able to find what these images were]

Thinking about the advertisements displayed above, have these made you more or less likely to become vegan? [This question was asked to non-vegans and nonvegetarians who haven't seen/heard advertising; n=1549]

Much more likely to become vegan - 1%
Slightly more likely to become vegan - 6%
Slightly less likely to become vegan - 11%
Much less likely to become vegan - 43%
Don’t know - 39%

5. Since you have seen the advertising, have you bought more or less of the following livestock food products or has there been no change? [This question was asked to non-vegans and nonvegetarians who have seen/heard advertising; n=321]

Meat
- More of this than before 4%
- Less of this than before 16%
- No change 80%
- Don’t know 0%
Milk
- More of this than before 6%
- Less of this than before 10%
- No change 84%
- Don’t know 0%
Other dairy products, e.g. cheese
- More of this than before 3%
- Less of this than before 7%
- No change 90%
- Don’t know 1%

I’m unsure how much to trust answers to questions like this. Respondents may be misremembering what they bought, and may not always have a correct insight into what actually makes them more or less likely to become vegan. It’s also possible that people who would never go vegan indicated their negative view towards vegan advocacy by answering that vegan ads made them less likely to go vegan. Nevertheless, answers questions 3 and 4 do weakly suggest that vegan ads could have some negative consequences.

I haven’t found what vegan ads were shown in question 4. By comparing answers to questions 3 and 4, we can see that respondents reacted to ads presented in question 4 more negatively than to other ads respondents have seen elsewhere. Maybe this is due to selection effects: respondents who have seen vegan ads are the kind of people who are targeted by such ads because they would react to them positively. But it’s also possible that the National Farmers' Union who commissioned the survey chose bad ads out of incompetence in vegan messaging, or to get the results that they wanted to get. Questions 3 and 4 both exclude vegans and vegetarians, some of whom may have changed their diet due to ads. This might be making consequences of vegan ads seem worse than they really are.

Note that question 1 and other similar questions in this article is not the best evidence we have on the rates of veganism and vegetarianism in the U.K. As pointed out in Šimčikas (2018), many people who claim to be vegetarians in surveys eat at least some meat. Some reasons why this might be the case are explored in Millum (2019). The best analysis on the veganism and vegetarianism rates in the U.K. that I know of is The Vegan Society (2018).

Bryant (2019)

The sample of this online survey was 1,000 meat-eaters living in the U.K. aged 18 and over, recruited through Prolific. Respondents were asked to rank various aspects of veganism and vegetarianism on a 1−7 scale, where 1 represents the most negative view of this aspect, 7 represents the most positive view, and 4 is the midpoint. See the results below:

As you can see, vegetarianism and veganism were rated to be similarly ethical and environmental, but vegetarianism was rated to be significantly healthier, more convenient, more affordable, tastier, more enjoyable, more acceptable, more aspirational, more nutritious, and easier.

Vegan and vegetarian advocates might want to read the background section in the full paper as it contains an interesting analysis of other surveys on the topic.

Other surveys on veganism and vegetarianism

Most of the surveys below were conducted by YouGov. If you press on the links, in most cases you will be able to see answer breakdowns by region, gender, politics, age, and social grade.

May 16-22 is national vegetarian week. What do you think about vegetarianism? (2015, GB)
- I don't understand it to be honest - 9%
- Fair enough, but not for me - 63%
- I'd like to be vegetarian but I'd find it hard - 7%
- It's a good idea and I'm trying harder to cut out meat - 11%
- I'm already vegetarian/vegan - 7%
- Don't know - 3%

I wish there was an option for people who understand vegetarianism but are against it or don’t like it.

This week is National Vegetarian Week. A common dispute some people have is over whether someone can be considered a true vegetarian if they still eat fish. Do you think a person can or cannot be considered a true vegetarian if they eat fish? (2017, GB)
- A person cannot be considered a true vegetarian if they still eat fish - 61%
- A person can still be considered a true vegetarian if they eat fish - 16%
- Don't know - 23%
In general, do you think a vegan diet is healthier or less healthy than a non-vegan diet? (2018, GB)
- A vegan diet is healthier than a non-vegan diet: 14%
- A vegan diet is less healthy than a non-vegan diet: 45%
- Don't know: 41%
Do you think the growth of vegans and veganism is mostly here to stay or is mostly a passing fad? (2018, GB)
- It is mostly here to stay - 53%
- It is mostly a passing fad - 28%
- Don't know - 19%
If you had a child who wanted to go entirely vegan, at what age would you let them? (2020, GB)
- Aged 10 or younger - 16%
- At 11 or older - 3%
- At 12 or older - 6%
- At 13 or older - 6%
- At 14 or older - 6%
- At 15 or older - 4%
- At 16 or older - 26%
- I would never let them - 8%
- Don’t know - 25%
A report suggests the livestock industry produces about 15% of global greenhouse gases, roughly equivalent to all the exhaust emissions of every car, train, ship and aircraft on the planet. Would you support or oppose government intervention to reduce meat consumption in our diets? (2015, GB)
- Strongly support - 10%
- Tend to support - 23%
- Tend to oppose - 27%
- Strongly oppose - 22%
- Don't know - 18%
To what degree do you agree with the following statement: I do not need meat to have a good meal. (2017)
- Strongly agree - 23%
- Agree - 33%
- Neither agree nor disagree - 23%
- Disagree - 13%
- Strongly disagree - 5%
The Independent (2017) presents a survey which asked meat-eaters why they didn’t turn vegan or vegetarian. Here are the top five reasons:
- I like the taste of meat too much (81%)
- Meat substitutes are too expensive (58%)
- I’d struggle for meal ideas (50%)
- My family eat meat and wouldn’t consider going vegetarian or vegan with me (41%)
- The attitude of certain vegetarians/vegans has put me off (26%)

Respondents who selected “the attitude of certain vegetarians/vegans has put me off” where asked why they were put off. The top responses were: “they were quite aggressive to those eating meat” (37%) and “they consider their way of eating to be the only way.”

Note that I haven’t found the exact phrasing of the questions, and the survey sample might not be representative.

Political candidate poll (2013, GB) - only 4% of U.K. voters would not vote for a vegetarian candidate. This compares favourably with other groups (e.g. homosexuals, atheists, muslims, catholics, jewish, obese, the rich, and those who speak a foregin language)
I’d do anything for love (but I won’t do that) (2016, GB) - 24% of respondents would be willing to become vegetarian if a long-term romantic partner asked them. For comparison, 66% would be willing to stop smoking, 49% to move house abroad, 45% to stop drinking, 29% to give up a job, 14% to ditch a friend, 5% to convert religion.
For more statistics see Is the future of food flexitarian? (2018-2019, U.K.) and U.K. diet trends 2020.

Eating better survey

(2017, Sample Size: 1715 GB Adults)

Compared to a year ago do you think you are eating more or less meat and meat products or is it about the same amount?
- More meat than a year ago - 5%
- Less meat than a year ago - 19%
- About the same amount - 67%
- Don't know - 3%
- Not applicable – I already didn’t eat any meat or meat products - 6%
- Not applicable – I have given up meat completely in the last year - 1%

I think that most respondents can’t accurately recall such details, hence the results are probably inaccurate.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? ‘Producing and consuming meat/livestock products has a significant negative impact on the environment’
- Strongly agree - 8%
- Tend to agree - 20%
- Neither agree nor disagree - 34%
- Tend to disagree - 18%
- Strongly disagree - 10%
- Don't know - 10%
How willing or unwilling are you to consider eating less meat and fewer meat products in the future?
- Very willing - 10%
- Fairly willing - 24%
- Neither willing nor unwilling - 21%
- Fairly unwilling - 16%
- Very unwilling - 16%
- Not applicable- I don't eat any meat or meat products - 7%
- Not applicable – I have already cut down the amount of meat I eat - 3%
- Don't know - 5%
Which two or three, if any, of the following do you think are the main reasons for eating or considering eating less meat and fewer meat products? Please tick up to three options
- Conditions in which animals are reared - 38%
- To reduce the impacts on mine or my family’s health - 24%
- Concern about where meat comes from - 23%
- High carbon footprint of meat production (e.g. impact on climate change) - 21%
- To save money - 19%
- Other environmental concerns (e.g. damage to wildlife and habitats, pollution, water usage etc.) - 19%
- Concern about food quality/food safety - 18%
- Taste preferences - 12%
- Waste of feeding grain to animals instead of people (i.e. food security) - 8%
- Religious preferences - 5%
- None of the above - 14%
- Don’t know - 9%

I think that answers to options like Conditions in which animals are reared and High carbon footprint of meat production were more popular due to the social desirability bias.

And which two or three, if any, of the following do you think would most help people to reduce their meat consumption? Please tick up to three options
- Restaurants & fast food chains to provide better choice of meat-free dishes or meals with less meat - 35%
- More price promotions for meat-free choices - 26%
- Recipes on how to cook vegetable-based dishes - 22%
- Schools to provide more meat-free choices or meals with less meat at lunchtime - 22%
- Supermarkets to provide more meat-free ready meals or meals with less meat - 21%
- More advertising for meat-free choices - 17%
- More celebrity chefs to promote non-meat/vegetarian cooking - 16%
- Government to introduce a tax on meat products - 9%
- None of these - 17%
- Don’t know - 16%

U.K. Animal welfare laws

YouGov/Animal Equality foie gras survey (2017, U.K.) - 72% would support a ban on importing foie gras, and think that it should remain illegal to produce it in the U.K..
YouGov / One Kind Survey (2016, Scotland)
- For each of the following policies, rate how much you would support or oppose them being implemented in Scotland.
  - End non-stun slaughter of farm animals
    - Strongly support - 48%
    - Tend to support - 20%
    - Neither support or oppose - 16%
    - Tend to oppose - 2%
    - Strongly oppose - 3%
    - Don’t know - 12%

I imagine that fewer people would support it if they realized that it would mean higher meat prices.

End the use of wild animals in circuses
- Strongly support - 52%
- Tend to support - 23%
- Neither support or oppose - 14%
- Tend to oppose - 3%
- Strongly oppose - 1%
- Don’t know - 6%
Ban driven grouse shooting (i.e. where a line of ‘beaters’ who round up and drive the birds towards a line of waiting guns)
- Strongly support - 32%
- Tend to support - 20%
- Neither support or oppose - 24%
- Tend to oppose - 12%
- Strongly oppose - 7%
- Don’t know - 6%

YouGov / WCL Survey (2019, GB)

After Brexit, animal welfare laws in the UK should be:
- More extensive than they are now - 38%
- Maintained at the current level - 43%
- Less extensive than they are now - 2%
- Don’t know - 17%
The Government has promised that the UK will be a world leader on animal welfare post-Brexit, recognising animal sentience and strengthening animal protection in UK law after we leave the EU. How confident are you that the Government will keep these commitments?
- Very confident - 4%
- Fairly confident - 27%
- Not particularly confident - 40%
- Not at all confident - 16%
- Don’t know - 14%
To what extent do you support or oppose the following:
- A law that requires MPs to ensure that animal welfare is protected, to the greatest extent possible, when new laws and policies are made.
  - Strongly support - 39%
  - Tend to support - 29%
  - Neither support not oppose - 19%
  - Tend to oppose - 2%
  - Strongly oppose - 1%
  - Don't know - 10%
- The establishment of an Animal Protection Committee to provide expert independent advice to the government on how to safeguard animal welfare.
  - Strongly support - 36%
  - Tend to support - 30%
  - Neither support not oppose - 18%
  - Tend to oppose - 4%
  - Strongly oppose - 2%
  - Don't know - 11%
- When the UK government is negotiating future trade deals, should they ensure that any deal includes a clear requirement that imported animal products meet or exceed British animal welfare production standards?
  - Should be a requirement - 80%
  - Should not be a requirement - 6%
  - Don’t know - 14%

Note that it’s unclear whether most respondents were thinking about farmed animal welfare when answering these questions or welfare of other animal groups like companion and circus animals.

Other

When it comes to animals, which comes closer to your view? (2017)
- All animals can feel pain and experience emotion - 75%
- Some animals can feel pain and experience emotion, but others can’t - 16%
- Animals can’t feel pain and experience emotion - 1%
- Don't know - 8%

This question is vague because the animal kingdom includes microscopic animals like nematodes and very complex animals like chimpanzees. I’m sure that less than 75% of people think that animals like nematodes, bugs and other small animals can feel pain and experience emotion. Nevertheless, it’s encouraging that only 1% of respondents selected the option “Animals can’t feel pain and experience emotion”.

Populus Animal Welfare Survey (2019, GB) - many respondents agree that each of the following are animal welfare concerns: organised dog fighting (69% agreement), snares (66%), fox hunting (61%), game shooting (50%), trophy hunting of endangered animals (70%), badger culling (56%), greyhound racing (46%), bull fighting (66%), mink hunting (56%), horse racing (45%), and deer hunting (57%).
RSPCA Assured survey (2016, U.K.) - 75% claim that farm animal welfare is important when shopping and eating out. It is not mentioned whether the sample is representative.
RSPCA claims that “polls have shown that 67% of the public don't want products to be imported at standards illegal in the UK, while 81% said they want our animal standards to be maintained or improved.” It seems that the poll was conducted by RSPCA itself. They don’t mention whether the poll used a representative sample.
Attitudes to animal research in 2016 (2016, U.K.) - see the link for details.
Issues Index: 2007 onwards - 1-2% britons think that animal welfare is the most important issue facing britain today. It seems that the percentage of people who choose animal welfare as the most important issue has been increasing. However, the sample is not specified.

Other countries

Faunalytics BRIC Countries survey (2018, China, India, Brazil, Russia, U.S).

This is a YouGov online panel survey which includes many questions. There were more than 1,000 respondents per country. There report say this about representativeness:

> The U.S. sample was nationally representative of adults. The Brazilian and Russian samples were representative of adults based around urban areas. The Indian sample was representative of all urban adults and the Chinese sample was representative of adults online.

Animals used for food have approximately the same ability to feel pain and discomfort as humans.

Eating meat directly contributes to the suffering of animals.

It is important to me that animals used for food are well cared for.

Low meat prices are more important than the well-being of animals used for food.

The typical [Brazilian/Russian/Indian/Chinese person/American] thinks it is important that animals used for food are well cared for.

The typical [Brazilian/Russian/Indian/Chinese person/American] thinks that low meat prices are more important than the well-being of animals used for food.

To what extent would you oppose or support a law in [Brazil/Russia/India/China/U.S.] that would require animals used for food to be treated more humanely?

Nore that comparisons between countries might be problematic due to language and culture differences.

You et al. (2014) (2011, China)

This study examines how much Chinese citizens care about animal welfare. It used a non-random sample of 6,006 respondents, covering 29 out of 34 provincial-level administrative units of China. Some of the findings:

Only 36.6% of respondents have ever heard of the term ‘animal welfare’. However, the paper claims that “it’s undeniable that ideas of treating animals with love, which can be found in Chinese traditional culture, are similar to the concept of animal welfare in the western culture.”
“72.9% of the respondents claimed that, for the sake of animal derived food safety, human beings should improve the rearing conditions for pigs and domestic fowls.”
65.8% of the respondents totally or partly agreed on establishing mandatory laws of animal welfare to compel producers to provide better living conditions for farm animals.
21.5% thought that factory rearing in China is “a very good way of production”, 34.5% that it is a scientific way, 23.8% that it limits freedom of pigs and domestic fowls, and 20.2% that it is a cruel way.
54.5% of the respondents claimed that they were willing, or to some extent willing, to pay more for high-welfare pork.

There were also two questions that asked respondents if they thought that some practices were appropriate:

“Though pigs naturally like to nose the earth, most of the piggeries use cement floor.”
- Appropriate -15%
- Somewhat inappropriate - 49.2%
- Extremely inappropriate - 20.5%
- Unimportant - 15.4%
The venders kill fowls near the cages in which fowls are kept.
- Appropriate - 10.4%
- Somewhat inappropriate - 43.5%
- Extremely inappropriate - 30.8%
- Unimportant - 15.2%

Other

In 2016, World Animal Protection commissioned a survey of 2,070 consumers of different ages and income levels from Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen and found that:
- “Almost 90% of Chinese consumers surveyed said they would be willing to change their purchasing habits, to move to pork products from pigs that have lived better lives.”
- “Almost 72% of respondents consider the welfare of farm animals important”
- “Over 83% want to see production systems that give pigs the freedom to move, not confining pigs to stalls (pictured)”
- “Over 75% would be willing to pay more for higher welfare pork”
- “Almost 77% of consumers would choose retailers who provide higher welfare pork.”

It seems that exact survey questions are not available in English. Also, it’s unclear if the sample was representative of surveyed cities.

la Lama et al. (2017) (2015, Mexico) asked 843 meat consumers in supermarkets in the city of Toluca, Mexico to rate how much they agree or disagree with various statements on a five-point scale (1=surely not, 2=probably not, 3=it does not matter to me, 4=probably yes, 5= definitely yes). See the results below:

The survey was conducted via personal interviews which were conducted at eight supermarket chains that sold meat products. It’s unclear to me to what degree the sample was nationally representative.

The future is flexitarian (2020, Singapore).
- Which, if any, of these best describes your usual eating habits?
  - Meat eater - 42%
  - Flexitarian - 39%
  - Other - 8%
  - Vegetarian / Vegan - 7%
  - Don’t know - 3%
  - Pescetarian - 3%
- Which, if any, of the following factors might encourage you to adopt a Vegetarian / Vegan diet?
  - General health reasons - 46%
  - Concerns over health risks related to meat / fish production - 37%
  - Concerns over healthiness of processed meat - 32%
  - Environment reasons - 24%
  - Don’t know / Not applicable - 21%
  - Wanting to eat more cheaply - 16%
  - Concerns over accuracy of meat / fish labelling - 12%
  - Other - 4%
Clark et al. (2017) did a meta-analysis of studies about the willingness-to-pay for higher welfare products.
Attitudes Toward Animal Research and Experimentation: An Annotated Bibliography [2011-2019]

References

Bennett, R., Anderson, J. and Blaney, R.J.P. (2002), “Moral intensity and willingness to pay

concerning farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy”,

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 187-202.

Binnekamp, M.H.A. and Ingenbleek, P.T.M. (2006), “Market barriers for welfare product

innovations”, Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences (NJAS), Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 169-78

Bryant, C., Barnett, J. (2018). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review. Meat Science, 143, 8–17. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.008

Clark, B., Stewart, G. B., Panzone, L. A., Kyriazakis, I., Frewer, L. J. (2017). Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies. Food Policy, 68, 112-127.

Ellingsen, K., Grimsrud, K., Nielsen, H. M., Mejdell, C., Olesen, I., Honkanen, P., Sandøe, P. (2015). Who cares about fish welfare? British Food Journal, 117(1), 257–273. doi:10.1108/bfj-08-2013-0223

Farrar, C., Fishkin, J. S., Green, D. P., List, C., Luskin, R. C., & Paluck, E. L. (2010). Disaggregating deliberation's effects: An experiment within a deliberative poll. British journal of political science, 333-347.

Grunert, S. and Juhl, H.J. (1995), “Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic foods”,

Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 39-62

Harper, G. and Makatouni, A. (2002), “Consumer perception of organic food production and farm

animal welfare”, British Food Journal, Vol. 104 Nos 3-5, pp. 287-99.

Hoogland, C.T., De Boer, J. and Boersema, J.J. (2005), “Transparency of the meat chain in the light

of food culture and history”, Appetite, Vol. 45, pp. 15-23.

Johansson-Stenman, O. (2018). Animal welfare and social decisions: Is it time to take Bentham seriously?. Ecological Economics, 145, 90-103.

Lusk, J. L., & Norwood, F. B. (2009). Direct Versus Indirect Questioning: An Application to the Well-Being of Farm Animals. Social Indicators Research, 96(3), 551–565. doi:10.1007/s11205-009-9492-z

Miranda-de la Lama, G. C., Estévez-Moreno, L. X., Sepúlveda, W. S., Estrada-Chavero, M. C., Rayas-Amor, A. A., Villarroel, M., María, G. A. (2017). Mexican consumers’ perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare and willingness to pay for welfare friendly meat products. Meat Science, 125, 106–113. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.12.001

Phan-Huy, S. and Fawaz, R.B. (2003), “Swiss market for meat from animal-friendly production –

responses of public and private actors in Switzerland”, Journal of Agricultural and

Environmental Ethics, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 119-36

Pohjolainen, P., Vinnari, M., Jokinen, P. (2015). Consumers’ perceived barriers to following a plant-based diet. British Food Journal, 117(3), 1150–1167. doi:10.1108/bfj-09-2013-0252

Velde, H.T., Aarts, N. and Van Woerkum, C. (2002), “Dealing with ambivalence: farmers’ and

consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding”, Journal of Agricultural

and Environmental Ethics, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 203-19.

Wolf, M. R., & Holian, D. B. (2006). Polls, elite opinion, and the president: How information and issue saliency affect approval. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36(4), 584-605.

You, X., Li, Y., Zhang, M., Yan, H., Zhao, R. (2014). A survey of Chinese citizens’ perceptions on farm animal welfare. PLoS One, 9(10), e109177.

This essay is a project of Rethink Priorities. It was written by Saulius Šimčikas. Thanks to David Moss, Jason Schukraft, Neil Dullaghan, and Peter Hurford for reviewing drafts of this post and making valuable comments.

Surveys related to animal advocacy

45