New from Faunalytics: Animal Factory, Factory Farm, Or Something Else? Testing The Language Of Advocacy.

We surveyed 2,000 U.S. adults to see how they react to three different terms for animal agriculture, and the results might change how you talk about this issue. “Animal factory” sparked a negative reaction in 79% of people who saw it, with strong connections to confinement, slaughter, cruelty, and unsanitary conditions.

Background

“Factory farming” is a common phrase used by animal advocates to describe the intensive raising of farmed animals for human consumption, also known as industrial or intensive animal agriculture. The origins of the phrase “factory farming” can be traced back to the late 1800s, when it had more positive connotations than it does today. At the time, factory farming was used to communicate efficiency and productivity in a period where agricultural technology was evolving rapidly. In the 1960s, “factory farming” became a more negative phrase, meant to express animal welfare concerns, which is how animal advocates use it today. However, does the phrase “factory farming” really communicate what advocates want?

While there is some research to suggest that most of the U.S. population is familiar with the concept of factory farming, the evidence is mixed. This is likely due to the fact that the term lacks a clear and consistent definition, and survey methods have varied. A national survey conducted in 2010 found that familiarity with the term rose from 49% to 64% between 2008 and 2010, while another survey conducted in 2019 found that only 53% of registered voters reported any familiarity with industrial or large-scale animal farming at all. In some contexts, the term Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) has been used in reference to factory farming, but this is a technical term developed specifically for regulation under the Clean Water Act of 1972 that is even less well understood by the general public, according to research conducted by Topos.

What is clear from recent research, however, is that when the public is provided with a definition of factory farm or is asked about specific practices typically ascribed to factory farming, most have a negative impression of factory farming and find these practices unacceptable. Faunalytics’ recent survey of 2,000 U.S. adults found that 71% to 85% of participants disapproved of common animal agriculture practices used in factory farms, with confinement methods drawing the most opposition. This is consistent with findings from a recent ASPCA survey of 1,000 U.S. adults, in which a majority reported being somewhat to very concerned about the effects of industrial-scale farming on animal welfare, and 74% expressed support for banning new factory farms. Similarly, while baseline awareness of CAFOs may be low, a 2023 survey of registered voters found that 54% were in support of a moratorium on new CAFOs.

Overall, findings from previous research suggest that most U.S. adults are concerned about factory farming practices, specifically regarding conditions for animals, but the term “factory farm” itself is ambiguous and may not necessarily convey what animal advocates intend it to. Given the discrepancy between the U.S. public’s understanding of the term “factory farm” and their sentiments toward the practices factory farming entails, there is a need to communicate differently about factory farms.

This study aims to address this communication gap by testing “animal factory” and “industrial animal agriculture” as alternative terms to “factory farm” in a survey of U.S. adults. Alternative terms were first identified through a review of related studies and initially tested in a pilot survey of 100 participants, which supported the selection of “animal factory” and “industrial animal agriculture” for further testing. The findings will help build a better understanding of how U.S. adults understand and perceive the term “factory farm” while providing evidence that may support the use of alternative terms, enabling more effective messaging to the U.S. public and stronger advocacy outcomes regarding the restrictions of common factory farming practices.

Key Findings

1. “Animal factory” received the most negative impressions among the three terms tested in this survey. Among participants who saw the term “animal factory,” 40% reported a very negative impression and 39% reported a somewhat negative impression. Participant responses to “animal factory” were significantly more negative than responses to “factory farm” or “industrial animal agriculture.”
2. “Factory farm” was the most familiar term, with “animal factory” close behind, while “industrial animal agriculture” was the least familiar. Slightly over two-thirds of participants were somewhat or very familiar with “factory farm” (67%), compared with 65% for “animal factory.” “Industrial animal agriculture” was less familiar, with 51% of participants reporting that they were somewhat or very familiar with the term.
3. Participants who were assigned to “animal factory” reported strong associations with several harmful conditions for animals. Many participants in this group reported a strong or very strong association between “animal factory” and animal confinement (84%), animal slaughter (83%), animal cruelty (69%), and unsanitary conditions (59%).
4. Each of the three terms was most strongly associated with the concept of raising animals for consumption. Most participants (88% to 89%) in all three test groups reported a strong to very strong association between the test term and raising animals for consumption. Profit-driven practices was also among the top three associations for all three terms, while large-scale farm production was a top association for both “factory farm” and “industrial animal agriculture.” The other top concept that participants strongly associated with “animal factory” was animal confinement.
5. Responses were mostly similar across demographic groups, but impressions differed somewhat by race/ethnicity. White participants had significantly more negative impressions of “animal factory” and “factory farm” than BIPOC participants. The survey did not find a notable race/ethnicity difference for “industrial animal agriculture.”

Conclusions

This study tested the understanding and perception of three terms referring to large-scale animal agriculture operations (“animal factory,” “factory farm,” and “industrial animal agriculture”). In general, most U.S. adults reported having at least a strong negative impression of all three terms, ranging from 52% to 79%. Similarly, half or more of U.S. adults reported being at least somewhat familiar with the three terms. While these findings suggest that the U.S. public tends to be somewhat familiar with all three terms and have a negative impression of them, there were meaningful differences in level of familiarity, strength of impression, and types of associations across the terms.

U.S. adults reported being most familiar with the term “factory farm” and least familiar with the term “industrial animal agriculture.” A majority of participants also reported being somewhat to very familiar with the term “animal factory,” 2% less than the proportion of participants who reported being familiar with “factory farming.” “Animal factory” received the most negative impressions among U.S. adults. Among participants who saw this term, 79% reported at least a strong negative impression, compared with 69% for “factory farm” and 52% for “industrial animal agriculture.” Participants tended to have similar types of associations with the three terms, but the strength of these varied. The term “animal factory” had the strongest associations with negative conditions for animals (confinement, cruelty, slaughter), with a majority of participants in the test group reporting a strong to very strong association with the term.

Several demographic characteristics were captured through the survey (age, sex, race/ethnicity, geographic region, community type, diet, knowledge of farming and agriculture, and political affiliation), but there were few demographic differences in the findings. One notable demographic difference was that white participants tended to have a stronger negative impression of the terms “animal factory” and “factory farm” than BIPOC participants. There were no significant differences in their impression of “industrial animal agriculture.” Some notable differences also emerged depending on the type of community a participant lived in. Rural residents and residents of small cities or towns associated “animal factory” more strongly with unsanitary conditions, while large-city residents associated it less strongly with those conditions. These differences may provide helpful considerations when communicating advocacy messages to specific audiences.

Taken together, these findings suggest that “animal factory” may be worth testing further as an alternative term to “factory farm” in advocacy messaging. “Industrial animal agriculture,” on the other hand, is relatively unknown and far more neutral and therefore is likely not a strong alternative. While U.S. adults remain most familiar with “factory farm,” their familiarity with “animal factory” was not far behind (67% vs. 65%, respectively). At the same time, U.S. adults had a considerably stronger negative impression of “animal factory” than either “factory farm” or “industrial animal agriculture” and they reported stronger associations between “animal factory” and harmful conditions for animals. Based on previous research, the U.S. public is very concerned about and finds unacceptable agriculture practices that result in cruel and inhumane conditions for animals. As such, use of the term “animal factory” may be useful to test in advocacy messages focused on harmful animal agriculture practices. These findings were consistent across a wide variety of demographic characteristics, further supporting the use of “animal factory” in advocacy messaging to the U.S. public.