Brazil is one of the largest producers and exporters of animal products in the world, slaughtering roughly 6.5 billion chickens, 58 million pigs, and 40 million cows each year. It’s also home to JBS, the world’s largest meat company, and an agribusiness-aligned congressional caucus, the Bancada Ruralista. Political change is a major lever for farmed animals, but there’s little evidence on how the Brazilian public responds to candidates who take positions on farmed animal policy.
Faunalytics ran a choice-based conjoint experiment with 1,908 Brazilian adults. Participants chose between hypothetical candidates whose attributes varied at random, including one of nine farmed animal–related policy proposals. This design isolates each proposal’s effect on vote share while holding other candidate and participant characteristics constant. It builds on our 2025 U.S. study, Political Animals?, which found that U.S. voters may reward candidates who support farmed animals.
Read the full reportBackground
Brazil is at the center of industrial animal agriculture. Every year, roughly 6.5 billion chickens, 58 million pigs, and 40 million cows are slaughtered in Brazil. It is also home to the world’s largest meat company, JBS, and is one of the largest exporters of animal products in the world. The scale of this industry is reflected in the political weight of the “Bancada Ruralista,” a powerful caucus in Brazil’s Congress that is tightly aligned with agribusiness interests. Brazilians in every region of the country consume more meat than recommended, despite health concerns noted by the Ministry of Health, likely driven by the cultural significance of meat in Brazil. The impact of animal agriculture in Brazil also has major environmental implications. Large-scale animal agriculture, and the beef industry in particular, is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation of critical ecosystems such as the Amazon rainforest.
The animal agriculture industry is deeply embedded in Brazil. Individual choices such as diet change are an important part of creating change for animals, but this is not the only avenue animal advocates can explore. Political change is one of the most powerful levers available, but it requires having policymakers in key positions who can champion farmed animal issues. However, politicians may be hesitant to voice support for policies that could benefit farmed animals if they are unsure how these stances will be perceived by the public. If their image — or worse, their vote totals — could be harmed by taking these positions in a country known for its meat, potential allies may remain silent.
Faunalytics’ 2025 report Political Animals? How U.S. Voters Respond To Candidates Making Farmed Animal Policy Proposals demonstrated that voters in the U.S. may reward candidates who take positions that support farmed animals. Whether this is true in Brazil, which has a different culture, political system, and animal agriculture landscape, is an open question. This report aims to answer it by exploring which policies Brazilians may support with their votes, as well as how these policies shape Brazilians’ opinions of candidates.
Research that identifies 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 and campaigning. 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 nine specific farmed animal–related policy proposals affect the Brazilian public’s vote choice and perceptions of hypothetical candidates running 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.
Key Findings
- Brazilian voters reward candidates who pledge to protect the Amazon rainforest and Cerrado savanna, and they punish poor treatment of farmed animals. Looking at survey participants as a whole, the candidates in our simulated voting exercise who received the highest vote share were those who proposed banning the destruction of the Amazon and Cerrado for the expansion of industrial animal agriculture (69.5%) or creating stronger punishments for poor treatment of farmed animals (66.8%).
- Voters punish candidates who support the spread of industrial animal agriculture. Candidates who proposed any of the four policies that would support the animal agriculture industry in this study received less than 50% of the vote. Candidates who proposed reducing animal health and safety regulations on large farms performed the worst (34.2%). Other unpopular policies included protecting the animal agriculture industry’s ability to conduct its own health and safety inspections (43.2%), removing environmental regulations limiting the expansion of industrial animal agriculture (44.6%), and increasing government financial support to meat companies (45.3%). Candidates who support these types of policies — and possibly even those who don’t explicitly oppose them when they are on the agenda — could see their vote shares suffer.
- Cage-free policies and candidates who propose them are viewed positively, but this doesn’t translate into votes. All else equal, a policy proposal aimed at banning the use of cages on farms didn’t make voters any more or less likely to vote for a candidate. Given the widespread efforts to make cage-free practices more prevalent, this finding is important. However, participants viewed candidates who proposed this policy as likable, competent, and compassionate. After they completed simulated elections that included policy positions, we asked participants if they supported a candidate’s policy rather than if they would vote for the candidate. In this scenario, the cage-free policy performed well. However, when directly asked, that policy support didn’t always translate into votes for candidates who proposed the policy. Brazilians may view this type of change as something that should be industry led rather than driven by the government. Alternatively, additional advocacy efforts may help convert positive feelings about this policy into votes for candidates willing to run on it.
- Protecting critical ecosystems and cracking down on farmed animal welfare violations won over voters across several groups. Residents of the South, Lula supporters, and women/non-binary voters were all among the groups most likely to support candidates proposing either of these policies, suggesting that these could be key targets for politically minded animal advocates to engage. But those policies weren’t only popular among those groups. Candidates who proposed these policies received increases in vote totals across nearly every segment of the population we analyzed.
- Candidates don’t have to choose between helping animals and looking good to voters. At the population level and across numerous demographic subgroups, candidates who proposed policies that would help farmed animals were rated as average or better in terms of competence, likability, and compassion. In other words, proposals that help farmed animals appear unlikely to harm candidates in the eyes of voters and may even help them. Candidates who proposed policies that would harm farmed animals were seen as average or worse on these same perception metrics. Supporting industrial animal agriculture could make candidates seem less competent, less likable, and less compassionate.
Conclusions
Brazilians Reward Candidates Who Protect The Environment And Are Tough On Poor Treatment Of Farmed Animals
The two most popular policy proposals in terms of vote share were banning the destruction of the Amazon and Cerrado for the expansion of industrial animal agriculture and creating stronger punishments for poor treatment of farmed animals. These proposals were also the most popular among the vast majority of the participant subgroups we examined — the only exceptions were the North and Central-West regions. In many cases, these proposals also resulted in higher perceptions of competence and likability for political candidates.
The proposal related to the Amazon and Cerrado is framed around protecting these regions rather than protecting animals. This is an important consideration for animal advocates and their political allies. For Brazilians who are not strongly motivated by farmed animal welfare issues, an environmental framing and protection of these ecosystems may be useful ways for advocates and candidates to package pro-animal policies. In addition, these types of policies may also open up opportunities to collaborate with environmental groups, as well as traditional peoples and communities such as Indigenous and quilombola groups (COIAB, n.d.; CONAQ, 2025).
It is important to note that simply banning the destruction of these regions for the creation of new pasture or cropland for feed does not guarantee benefits to farmed animals. Limited land for pasture could cause the beef industry to intensify its production methods, possibly by increasing the density of cattle on pasture or seeking to adopt factory farming practices. Advocates working on this issue should pair this type of policy proposal with safeguards against such possibilities.
Creating stronger punishments for poor treatment of farmed animals was also a popular policy proposal. This is consistent with a poll conducted in 2025, which found that 83% of Brazilians supported harsher penalties for illegal hunting (Instituto Vida Livre, 2025; Bragagnolo et al., 2019). Rather than focusing on directly improving the conditions of farmed animals, such as banning cages, this proposal frames helping farmed animals by imposing harsher penalties for humans or farms. This angle could be appealing to law-and-order”-minded candidates or groups and could provide advocates with another opportunity for collaboration — though not without pushback from the “Bancada Ruralista,” the powerful agribusiness caucus and lobby (Animal Charity Evaluators, 2018). Perhaps unexpectedly, the popularity of this policy suggests that animal advocates may find it helpful to explore framing calls for change around humans rather than animals — specifically around punishing humans who mistreat animals.
Voters Punish Candidates Who Want To Help Industrial Animal Agriculture
Candidates who made any of the four pro-animal-agriculture policy proposals we tested saw vote shares below 50%. In other words, Brazilians as a whole did not want to vote for candidates who adopted policies that would help the animal agriculture industry. These policies include reducing animal health and safety regulations, protecting the meat industry’s ability to conduct its own inspections, removing environmental regulations that limit the creation of large animal farms and grazing areas, and increasing government financial support to meat companies (Animal Equality, 2024).
Together, these proposals span health and safety regulations, the environment, and government spending, indicating that Brazilians are broadly opposed to giving the animal agriculture industry more leeway or support in its operations. The unpopularity of these proposals doesn’t necessarily reflect concern for the welfare of farmed animals, but it does provide advocates with a list of potential campaign themes to focus on. Moreover, it demonstrates that pro-agribusiness candidates may be out of step with voters on these issues.
Several Policies Span Voter Characteristic Divides
Despite a polarized political environment, candidates who proposed banning the destruction of the Amazon and Cerrado and creating harsher punishments for poor treatment of farmed animals performed well among all four political groups we looked at: Lula supporters, Flávio Bolsonaro supporters, supporters of another candidate, and blank voters (CNN Brasil, 2025). Similarly, candidates who proposed reducing animal health and safety regulations performed poorly across all four groups.
In fact, this same pattern was found across nearly all of the characteristic subgroups we looked at: voters of all presidential preferences, genders, and races. It was also true regardless of the candidate’s gender, race, or age. The only exception to this trend came in the regional breakdown. The pattern held in the Northeast and Southeast, as well as in the South, though poor performance when supporting animal health and safety deregulation was only marginally significant in this region. In both the North and Central-West, however, vote bumps when proposing to ban the destruction of the Amazon and Cerrado were only marginally significant, while voters in these regions essentially flipped a coin for candidates proposing harsher punishments or cuts to regulations. Put differently, the North and Central-West were less responsive to candidates who proposed the two policies that were clearly the most popular in the other regions of the country.
Though there are limited regional exceptions, these findings are important for advocates. These two policies in support of farmed animals are popular across nearly every subgroup, while the health and safety deregulation policy is unpopular across nearly every subgroup. Advocacy campaigns focused on these topics — whether they highlight environmental protections and taking animal welfare violations seriously or critique supporters of animal health and safety deregulations — may be more likely to receive popular support.
It’s worth highlighting the Central-West region of Brazil in particular given its role as the heart of the beef industry and much of the agriculture sector more broadly (Barbosa et al., 2023). Because of the key role animal agriculture plays in the region, it’s unsurprising that candidates who propose pro-animal policies aren’t met with as enthusiastic of a response in the Central-West as they are elsewhere. However, despite the region’s comparatively lukewarm response to banning the destruction of the Amazon and Cerrado and harsher penalties for poor treatment of farmed animals, the Central-West was the only region to punish candidates who proposed cutting environmental regulations. This apparent contradiction — tepid support for protecting the Amazon and Cerrado, both of which overlap the Central-West, and a distaste for environmental deregulation — is worth further exploration (IBGE, 2025). Advocates may find that framing their messaging in opposition to environmental cuts may be more successful in this part of the country than calling for additional regulations, but only additional research can answer this question.
Cage-Free Improves Perceptions Of Candidates, But Not Their Vote Totals
In recent years, animal advocates have invested considerable resources into cage-free campaigns and bans on gestation crates (see, e.g., Mercy For Animals, 2023; Animal Charity Evaluators, 2025; Addy, 2026; Alianima, 2026). Despite this, voters were unmoved by candidates who proposed to ban cages on farms. For candidates proposing this policy, whether a participant voted for them or their opponent was essentially a toss-up. This policy had no significant effect on vote share across any of the subgroups based on political preference, gender, race, and region. One subgroup, people intending to cast blank votes in the 2026 presidential election, saw a negative marginally significant effect on vote share, but this should be interpreted with caution. In other words, voters were indifferent when candidates proposed banning cages.
Interestingly, when we removed the voting task and simply asked participants how much they supported a given policy, a cage ban performed better. In this situation, a ban on cages received higher than average support across most characteristic subgroups.
These two findings taken together suggest that Brazilians are generally supportive of a cage ban, but not strongly enough for it to influence their vote choice. Alternatively, it could mean that they view the use of cages as something that doesn’t fall in the government’s domain, and instead see it as the responsibility of farmers or businesses. These are only two possible explanations and future research is needed to say for certain.
In light of this finding, animal advocates may wish to continue their important work securing cage-free commitments from corporations operating in Brazil and holding them accountable. Another option is to explore avenues for translating existing support into more concrete political support such as votes.
Helping Farmed Animals Makes Candidates Look Good
In general, proposals that would help farmed animals often resulted in candidates being perceived as more competent, likable, and/or compassionate in the eyes of voters. For example, proposing a ban on cages resulted in higher than average scores on all three metrics. The inverse was also true, as in the case of candidates proposing cuts to regulations on animal health and safety who were perceived as less competent, likable, and compassionate.
Across the characteristic subgroups we analyzed, candidates who proposed policies aimed at helping farmed animals were always rated as average or above average in terms of competence, likability, and compassion scores. Similarly, candidates who proposed policies that would harm farmed animals were always rated as average or below average on these metrics. There were only two exceptions to this pattern. Flávio Bolsonaro supporters saw candidates as slightly more competent when they proposed removing environmental regulations on large animal farms, though this result was only marginally significant. Additionally, 60-year-old candidates were seen as more compassionate when they proposed increasing subsidies to meat companies, a result that is likely a chance finding because it runs counter to all other findings.
In other words, across all subgroups, proposals that would help farmed animals either improved or did not affect participants’ perceptions of candidates, while proposals that would hurt farmed animals either hurt or did not affect participants’ perceptions of candidates.
When Farmed Animals Are On The Agenda, Silence Has A Cost
Candidates who proposed no changes to food policy received the second-lowest vote share of all candidates. When participants were specifically asked about this policy stance, it received lower than average support. Candidates who proposed maintaining the status quo were also seen as less competent than average. This was also true across many of the characteristic subgroups we analyzed.
Rather than viewing “No proposed changes to food policy” as a control condition, we must recognize that it was stated in the context of elections in which participants saw other candidates making specific proposals. As a result, wishing to maintain the status quo may have made candidates look complacent, a possibility that is supported by the poor competence scores these candidates received.
This suggests that if advocates are able to get animal-related food policy on the political agenda, candidates who don’t take a stance may fare poorly. Taken together with our findings documenting the potential electoral and perception benefits of proposals that benefit farmed animals and the analogous downsides of proposals that would harm farmed animals, this could mean that getting industrial animal agriculture into the political discourse may be a fruitful avenue for animal advocates.
Health Is Persuasive, National Culture Is Not
We asked participants to compare the persuasiveness of several arguments in favor of and in opposition to policies to reduce meat consumption. The most persuasive argument dealt with health: “Much of our nation thinks that healthy and nutritious diets should be a goal for our country, so we should change our policies to get Brazil’s diets in line with dietary guidelines.” The least persuasive argument focused on national culture: “Brazilian traditions would be threatened if food policies were changed. Brazilians eat a lot of meat, and virtually everyone agrees: that’s just who we are.”
Unlike vote choice, this component of our study was not part of an experimental design and instead relied on participants’ self-reported impression of the arguments’ persuasiveness. Future research should explore additional arguments and variants, but animal advocates have an opportunity to test this finding in the field. Rather than focusing on an animal welfare approach, which was not rated as particularly persuasive, well-informed advocates could test health-focused messaging by highlighting the fact that Brazilians eat more meat than the Ministry of Health recommends (Bonfim et al., 2024). In addition, despite the strong association many have with Brazil and beef consumption, the public does not appear to be persuaded by the argument that eating meat is inherent to Brazilian identity.
