Abstract
Planetary and human health depend on Westerners’ ability to reduce meat consumption. Meat production degrades the environment while excessive meat intake is associated with cancer and cardiovascular disease, among others. Effective reasons and motivations are needed for consumers to change their diet. The fact that modern animal agriculture inflicts a great deal of pain on animals from their birth to their slaughter, animal welfare/suffering may drive consumers to curtail their meat consumption. This systematic review examined a total of 90 papers to ascertain consumers’ awareness of the pain animals experience in animal agriculture, as well as consumer attitudes towards meat reduction due to animal welfare. Results show that consumers have low awareness of animal agriculture. Awareness of animal agricultural practices and animal sentience is associated with increased negative attitudes towards animal suffering. Animal suffering due to farming practices, transportation, slaughter, and animal sentience are factors that may encourage a reduction in meat consumption, and even dietary change in the short term. There is also evidence that animal suffering may be a more compelling motivation for consumers’ willingness to change their diet than for health or environmental reasons. Therefore, increasing consumers’ awareness of animal suffering in meat production is paramount to contributing to reduced pressure on the environment and improved human health.
Generated Summary
This systematic review examines consumers’ attitudes towards animal suffering and the impact on their awareness, willingness, and dietary changes. The review is based on the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) of health behavior change, which describes the stages of awareness, willingness, and change. The study analyzed 90 papers to ascertain consumers’ awareness of the pain animals experience in animal agriculture, as well as consumer attitudes towards meat reduction due to animal welfare. The research aimed to answer questions about consumers’ awareness of animal suffering, their attitudes towards modern animal agriculture, their willingness to reduce or replace animal-based products due to animal welfare, and whether they have reduced or stopped animal product intake due to animal welfare. The methodology involved a PRISMA 2009 protocol, identifying keywords to search for literature on consumer attitudes towards animal welfare and suffering in animal agriculture, and categorizing the articles based on these criteria.
Key Findings & Statistics
- Studies from various countries including North and South America (Canada, U.S., Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru), Western and Eastern Europe, Australia were included.
- Brazilian consumers considered themselves somewhat informed (34%) or intermediately informed (20%) about animal agriculture.
- Only 21% of consumers were aware of culling of newborn male calves (beef and dairy sector).
- 55% of Dutch participants seemed to be aware about the culling of one-day-old chicks, and 83% of Chilean participants reported having low information about animals’ restriction of movement.
- 51.6-88.5% of participants from Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, and the U.K. were unaware of production diseases in factory farming.
- Awareness of zero grazing ranged between 31-32% in two studies from Brazil.
- 53.6% of U.S. participants stated they were unaware of tie stalls for dairy cows, and 51.32% of Brazilian participants reported awareness of the farrowing housing system.
- There is a significant amount of discrepancy in the awareness among consumers concerning piglet castrations: Brazilians (30-33%) and (58.8%), Belgians (45.9%) and (50%), French, Germans and Dutch (48.5%), Germans (60%) and between 17-73%, Norwegians (60%), and Chileans (79%).
- A study showed that 70% of Australian consumers remained unconcerned about farm animal welfare.
- Among Finnish participants, older people expressed more trust in prevailing animal production, whereas women, urban residents, and people with companion animals expressed less trust in prevalent farming.
- In a cross-cultural survey about how meat consumers perceive farm animal welfare, Spanish and Mexican women scored higher than men.
- In a study, participants from four countries in the U.K. ranked pets and farmed animals’ capacity to experience sensations as follows: pain—dogs (91.4%) > cats (87.6%) > pigs (81.0%) > cows (85.5%); fear-dogs (87.1%) > cats (79.5%) > pigs (76.6%) > cows (75.6%).
- 79% of Brazilian participants considered farmed animals in production systems as not being well treated due to restriction of movements, and for 39% farm animal welfare was a major concern.
- When asked about their opinions about animal production for laying hens, broilers, and pigs, respondents in Germany rated these intensive systems more unfavorably than respondents from other countries.
- The number of supportive participants of gestation stalls for pregnant sows dropped to 17.8% after being provided with additional information.
- When Brazilian participants (N = 173) were shown a video with information about the suffering of sows, a vast majority rejected it (87.3%).
- Even if participants were provided with information in regards to cattle fattening, the opponents (59.3%) were still in the majority compared to other groups.
- 96% of Australians agreed that animals can experience grief, fear (99%), happiness (96%), distress (95%), and sadness (92%).
- 75% French and Brazilian consumers considered sheep as capable of feeling fear, happiness and suffering.
- In a study where U.K. participants were provided with descriptions of pigs, cows, and chickens as sentient beings, those who were more committed to eating meat were more likely to want to avoid information about food animals’ sentience.
- In another study, although Australian women meat eaters experienced greater concern for animals, when exposed to audio-visual footage demonstrating the intelligence of a lamb, most participants expressed defensive justifications for eating meat.
- 69% of U.K. halal meat consumers disagree that stunning meat animals prior to slaughter reduces the pain associated with slaughter, and 69.9% prefer slaughter without stunning.
- 78.8% (especially highly educated women) of Dutch participants expressed disagreement with culling day-old chicks.
- In an experiment, 150 participants (82 women) believed they would reduce meat consumption in the future after being provided with “newspaper articles” describing the negative effects of meat consumption on animals.
- 24.5% of participants who reported they had reduced their meat consumption had done so for less than a year.
Other Important Findings
- Consumers generally have negative attitudes towards animal farming practices, with concerns about animal welfare.
- Consumers tend to associate confinement and intensive farming with animal suffering.
- Consumers’ attitudes towards intensive farming systems tend to be more negative when they are provided with additional information.
- Consumers’ beliefs about farmed animals’ characteristics are also a factor, with consumers generally recognizing animals as sentient.
- The provision of information during experiments influences consumers’ willingness to reduce meat intake.
- Consumers’ willingness to change their diet can be influenced by the meat-animal association.
- Appeals towards animal welfare and meatless diets are more effective on women than men.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- Most studies are based on self-reported outcomes with a high risk of social desirability bias.
- Most experiments cited above are their effects only in a short term.
- Cultural traditions, rooted habits, and convenience related to the intake of meat and other animal-based products play a major role in dietary change.
Conclusion
This systematic review highlights consumers’ limited awareness of animal agriculture practices and the strong influence of information on their perceptions and attitudes. The study underscores that consumers express greater criticism toward practices causing animal suffering, particularly in intensive farming systems. The research indicates that interventions appealing to animal suffering can effectively influence consumers’ willingness to reduce meat consumption and promote dietary changes. Moreover, the study suggests that animal suffering is a more compelling motivator for dietary change than health or environmental concerns. It also emphasizes that demographic factors, particularly gender, play a significant role in shaping these attitudes. Furthermore, the research stresses the importance of providing consumers with detailed information about animal welfare and the impact of farming practices, transportation, and slaughter. It promotes plant-based diets and the adoption of critical citizenship while addressing the existing hegemonic structures within the food system. The findings highlight that appeals to animal welfare and the use of emotionally framed messages can be more effective in influencing consumers’ behavior and increasing empathy toward animals. This will help improve the current understanding about the consumer’s attitudes towards animal suffering in the meat production to contribute to reduced pressure on the environment and improved human health. This review emphasizes the need for future research to address limitations and explore ways to counter the prevailing practices combined with animal sentience and meat association.