Comments
Hi all!
We’re happy to share a new Animetrics study: How Do Muslim Consumers View Halal and Animal Welfare and Respond to Different Messages? Evidence from 15 Countries.
Animetrics, in collaboration with Kaleem Ahmid, surveyed 6,294 Muslim consumers across 15 countries—the first study of this scale to examine how halal, animal welfare, and food choices intersect.
Muslim consumers account for roughly one-quarter of the world's population and are a major force in the global food system. Yet little is known about how they connect halal —which defines what is permitted under Islam— and animal welfare, which farming practices they find unacceptable, or which messages—from Islamic framing to animal welfare and environmental arguments—are most likely to resonate.
Without this evidence, advocacy efforts risk overlooking concerns that Muslim consumers already see as relevant to halal or relying on approaches that do not fit their values and priorities.
We developed the study in consultation with 16 organizations and advocates working across animal advocacy, food systems, and Muslim community contexts, whose input helped ensure that it addressed the questions most relevant to their work.
🔍 Key highlights
For many participants, halal requirements extend to how animals are treated throughout their lives. Around six in ten said that how an animal was raised, transported, and protected from distress was essential for meat to be halal, and 63% agreed a product cannot be truly halal if animals suffered unnecessarily.
Consumer expectations of halal certification are high. Around three-quarters associated halal-certified products and facilities with better animal treatment. At the same time, about 63% believed current certification focuses too much on slaughter and not enough on how animals are raised and transported.
Welfare-related farming practices raised widespread religious concerns—and many participants said they would consider alternatives that avoided them. Overall, 87% viewed at least one of six practices as Islamically unacceptable, with long-distance transport, removal of body parts without pain relief, automated slaughter, and confinement raising the most concern. Around 91% said they would switch to another halal animal-based product that avoided the practice, while 75% would consider a plant-based alternative if all available halal animal-based options still involved practices they found unacceptable. Practical considerations mattered for both, while similarity in taste was especially important for plant-based alternatives.
There is substantial uncertainty about whether several emerging or less familiar practices are Islamically acceptable. Uncertainty was especially high for the use of insect-based protein in animal feed, genetic engineering, stunning, and cultivated meat—issues for which religious views, public understanding, and halal standards are still developing.
Fully plant-based diets are widely seen as Islamically acceptable. Around 60% agreed that excluding all animal-based foods—including meat, milk, eggs, and honey—is compatible with Islam. Agreement was also relatively high among more religious participants and those who placed greater importance on halal status.
When uncertain about the halal status of a food or product, Muslim consumers turn to religious and certification institutions, not social media or general search. Certification bodies (61%), Islamic scholars (54%), and Islamic informational resources (52%) are the most commonly cited sources — far ahead of social media (11%) or top search results (23%).
Knowledge of stunning is limited, views on its acceptability are divided, and opposition is often conditional rather than fixed. Around 61% had either never heard of stunning or had heard of it without knowing what it involved. Just under half accepted stunning in at least one form. Among those who rejected it, 86% said at least one condition could make them more open to reversible stunning, particularly approval from religious authorities, halal certification, and reassurance that it would not interfere with the required slaughter method.
Islamic framing outperformed secular framing, while animal welfare content outperformed environmental content—and the size of these advantages depended on both the outcome and the audience. Islamic framing was especially effective at increasing interest in hearing more from the organization. Animal welfare content was especially effective at reducing stated interest in buying products from industrial animal farming. These differences were clearest among participants who were not already reducing animal-based foods and did not intend to do so.
There is no single Muslim consumer audience. Views differed across regions and participant groups, including by religiosity, the importance placed on halal status, current dietary practices, and readiness to reduce consumption. Regional patterns can offer useful starting points, but advocacy strategies will still need to be adapted to local contexts.
📌 Main recommendations for advocacy organizations
Frame animal welfare as a halal concern. Many participants already see how animals are raised, transported, handled, and protected from suffering as relevant to whether a product is truly halal. Advocacy can build on this existing understanding rather than presenting animal welfare as a separate framework.
Make gaps in halal certification visible. Where consumer expectations go beyond what certification standards currently require, advocates can use this evidence to support clearer welfare provisions, stronger transparency, and greater accountability across halal supply chains.
Pair concern with practical alternatives. Raising awareness of unacceptable farming practices is unlikely to be sufficient on its own. Consumers also need affordable, appealing, convenient, and clearly labelled higher-welfare halal and plant-based options.
Present plant-based eating as religiously legitimate. Most participants saw fully plant-based diets as compatible with Islam. Working with trusted scholars and Islamic platforms can help communicate this clearly, while familiar recipes and practical guidance can make dietary change feel more achievable.
Work through trusted religious and certification institutions. Certification bodies, Islamic scholars, and established Islamic information platforms are likely to have greater credibility than general online content or influencer-led campaigns, especially on unfamiliar or contested issues.
Prioritize clear education on stunning. Explain what stunning is, distinguish reversible from irreversible methods, and clarify how different approaches relate to animal welfare and halal requirements. Guidance from credible religious authorities appears particularly important.
Match the message to the intended outcome. Islamic framing may be especially useful when the goal is to encourage engagement with an organization. Animal welfare content may be more effective when the goal is to reduce interest in products from industrial animal farming. Combining both may be valuable when both outcomes matter.
Tailor strategies to region and audience readiness. Campaign priorities, messengers, and calls to action should reflect local religious institutions, certification systems, practical barriers, existing diets, and willingness to change.
📖 Read the summary and the full report.
📝 Have questions, feedback, or want to discuss how the findings could be applied? Take our 2-minute survey here.
💛 We offer support with interpreting the findings, adapting them to different regional and organizational contexts, and identifying practical next steps.
