New Research: Public Acceptability Of Standard U.S. Animal Agriculture Practices

A new study released by Faunalytics reveals a widespread opposition among the U.S. public for standard animal agriculture practices, including severe confinement and painful mutilations. The report, “Public Acceptability Of Standard U.S. Animal Agriculture Practices,” found that 71% to 85% of U.S. adults view 12 standard practices, such as confining egg-laying hens in battery cages and pigs in gestation crates, as unacceptable. This finding has significant implications for anti-cruelty laws across the country that often exempt “commonly accepted” farming practices.

Background

Litigation has become an important tool for advocates working to improve the treatment of farmed animals in the United States (U.S.), 99% of whom are factory farmed, constituting over 10 billion animals. Factory farming subjects animals to practices that value efficiency and productivity over animal welfare, including confinement, mutilation, and killing. For example, in the U.S., almost all pigs have their tail amputated shortly after birth, almost all egg-laying chicks have their beaks partially amputated, approximately 97% of male beef cows are castrated typically without pain relief, approximately 60% of egg-laying hens live in battery cages, and almost all broiler chickens live in dense indoor sheds. Such practices — prevalent in factory farming and considered standard in animal agriculture industries — may constitute cruelty under the law.

In at least 37 states, anti-cruelty laws include exemptions for “commonly accepted” animal agricultural practices. However, some pieces of legislation don’t specify whether “commonly accepted” refers to industry standards or the views of the general public. This creates a legal gray area: if a practice that’s common within the industry is found to be unacceptable by the broader public, it could lose its exemption and therefore be considered a violation of anti-cruelty laws — potentially making the practice illegal. The ambiguity over whether “common” refers to industry or public acceptance leaves room for significant legal contestation. Therefore, U.S. polling data reflecting public opinion on the acceptability of standard farming practices could provide crucial evidence for these legal arguments.

While there is some research on U.S. public attitudes toward eating animals, there is a lack of up-to-date data specifically focused on U.S. public perceptions of standard farming practices, which are considered unacceptable by the general public in other countries. For example, Bryant Research (2022) found strong opposition in the United Kingdom (U.K.) to standard animal agriculture practices: 74% to 96% of the U.K. public found them unacceptable, depending on the particular practice.

This study aims to fill that gap by surveying U.S. adults to assess whether they view standard animal agriculture practices as acceptable. The findings will provide U.S. legal advocates with empirical data to support arguments that certain industry norms are not “commonly accepted” by the public and should therefore not be exempt from U.S. anti-cruelty laws.

Key Findings

1. A clear majority of the U.S. public finds standard animal agriculture practices for pigs, cows, and chickens to be unacceptable, ranging from 71% to 85%, depending on the practice. Indeed, only a minority of people found standard practices to be acceptable, ranging from 7% to 16%. 
2. Confinement practices were the most unacceptable practices, including battery cages for laying hens (85%), gestation crates for pigs (84%), and cramped barns for broiler chickens (82%). Additionally, killing newborn male chicks who can’t lay eggs with a macerator was also considered widely unacceptable (84%). In contrast, killing pigs in gas chambers and killing chickens by live-shackle were some of the most acceptable practices (16% and 12% saying it’s acceptable, respectively), although the majority of the U.S. public still found them unacceptable (71% and 77% saying it’s unacceptable, respectively).
3. Women/non-binary people and Democrats, on average, find standard animal agriculture practices more unacceptable than men and Republicans. Ranging from 1 to 5, or from “very acceptable” to “very unacceptable,” men (average score = 4.1) and Republicans (average = 4.0) rated standard practices as less unacceptable than women and non-binary people (average = 4.3) and Democrats (average = 4.4). These differences were statistically significant. Still, most people, regardless of their gender, age, race/ethnicity, region, income, or political affiliation, viewed the practices as unacceptable overall. Across all groups, the lowest average across all items was 4 (“somewhat unacceptable”) and the highest was 4.4 (between “somewhat unacceptable” and “very unacceptable”).

Conclusions

The data clearly indicates a strong public perception that various standard animal agriculture practices are unacceptable in the United States. Across all listed practices, a majority of respondents rated them as unacceptable, with percentages ranging from approximately 71% to 85%. Notably, practices such as keeping laying hens in battery cages and killing newborn male chicks (who can’t lay eggs) received the highest levels of unacceptability, approximately 84% and 85%, respectively. Given that standard animal agriculture practices aren’t widely accepted by the U.S. public, legal advocates can argue that  “common” refers to what the public thinks, and therefore exemptions in U.S. anti-cruelty laws for “commonly accepted” animal agriculture practices can be deemed illegal (e.g., Nebraska’s Livestock Animal Welfare Act (Section 54-907)).

Additionally, our demographic results revealed that most people, regardless of their gender, age, race/ethnicity, region, income, or political affiliation, find standard practices unacceptable as the lowest score (pooled across all items) was 4 (“somewhat unacceptable”). Despite this, women/non-binary respondents (M = 4.3) found standard practices more unacceptable than men (M = 4.1), as did Democrats (M = 4.4) compared to Republicans (M =  4) (ps < .05).

This overwhelming sentiment suggests widespread concern about farmed animal welfare and highlights an urgent need for the animal agricultural industry and policymakers to consider welfare reforms, labeling legislation, or plant-based alternatives so as to align with public expectations. For example, new legislation in Switzerland requires retailers to label animal products, including eggs and milk, that involve painful practices carried out without anesthesia, such as castrating, tail-docking, and debeaking. U.S. advocates can also demand similar labeling legislation and continue to push for cage-free legislation and urge animal agriculture companies to adopt more plant-based alternatives, cage-free systems, and/or in-ovo sexing technologies.