Faunalytics’ new report, How U.S. Voters Respond To Candidates Making Farmed Animal Policy Proposals, examines how specific farmed animal policy proposals influence U.S. voters’ candidate preferences and perceptions. Using a choice-based conjoint experiment, they isolated the effects of these policy proposals while accounting for various candidate and participant characteristics.
Background
In the United States alone, billions of chickens, pigs, cows, and other farmed animals are killed every year for food (Faunalytics, 2025). Despite unimaginable amounts of animal suffering and U.S. diets that exceed recommended guidelines for meat consumption, industrial animal agriculture is thriving (Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, n.d.; Blazejczyk, 2021). One of the most direct ways of changing the harmful practices of the animal agriculture industry is through government policy. Actions like strengthening animal welfare regulations, limiting subsidies to meat companies, or increasing investments in plant-based alternatives would have considerable and long-lasting benefits for animals.
Pro-animal policy change requires pro-animal politicians. While there are examples of U.S. politicians taking actions to help animals, there are still far too few policymakers working to reduce animal suffering (Klein, 2020; Vogeler, 2020). If politicians aren’t sure how certain policy proposals will affect their chances of getting elected, they may be unwilling to adopt pro-animal positions. Fears of electoral blowback aren’t entirely baseless (Saha, 2023), but this doesn’t mean that voters are opposed to any and all policies aimed at helping farmed animals.
Research that indicates 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, campaigning, and advocacy. 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 specific farmed animal-related policy proposals affect the U.S. public’s vote choice and perceptions of hypothetical candidates 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.
Please remember: Individuals working on behalf of a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization in the United States are prohibited from engaging in “political campaign activity” or advocating in support of candidates or parties. For more information, please consult The Council of Nonprofits website, your employer, and legal counsel for guidance about allowable activities. The information provided here is for educational purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice, nor as an endorsement of any political candidate or party.
Key Findings
- Voters prefer candidates who support stronger welfare regulations for farmed animals. Of the eight policy proposals tested in this study, only candidates who proposed to “Strengthen farm animal regulations to reduce the number of animals on factory farms” performed better than candidates who proposed no changes to food policy. In fact, candidates who endorsed this policy position were expected to receive 61% of the vote share in a two-person race, all else equal. Among liberal voters, candidates who said they wanted to strengthen regulations for farmed animal welfare averaged 70% of the vote. These candidates received 58% of the vote among moderate voters and 55% of the vote among conservative voters. In other words, the U.S. public is very willing to reward candidates who push for improved conditions for farmed animals.
- Voters punish candidates who support the expansion of factory farming. The two policy proposals that resulted in the lowest vote shares for candidates were “Stop regulations that limit the number of animals on farms” and “Increase government subsidies to meat companies.” Candidates who endorsed these policies were expected to receive only about 40% of the vote in a two-person race and performed worse than candidates who proposed no food policy changes. Giving more taxpayer money to meat companies was unpopular across the political spectrum.
- Pro-animal candidates are often seen as more likable, more competent, and more empathetic. Candidates who proposed strengthening farmed animal welfare regulations were seen as more likable, while candidates who wanted to stop regulations that limit the number of animals on farms or increase subsidies to meat companies were seen as less likable. This policy was also associated with higher perceived levels of competence and empathy. Empathy scores were also higher for candidates who proposed an end to new factory farms and who wanted to reduce subsidies to meat companies.
- Voters are wary of cultivated meat. Candidates who proposed to “increase public investment in cultivated meat (also known as cell-cultured meat)” performed poorly in terms of vote share, receiving only 45% of the vote, all else equal. This dropped to 40% among women and to 38% among conservatives. Candidates who endorsed a ban on “lab-grown meat” earned an expected 54% of the vote in a two-person race. This number rose to 57% among women and 62% among conservatives.
- A bipartisan coalition for farmed animals is possible. Liberals, moderates, and conservatives were all willing to reward candidates who proposed to “Strengthen farm animal regulations to reduce the number of animals on factory farms.” All three groups also withheld votes from candidates who proposed to “Increase government subsidies to meat companies.” These findings suggest that certain farmed animal-related policy proposals would likely receive support across the political spectrum.
- Future research should use experimental methods like choice-based conjoint to isolate cause and effect, as well as the impact of specific attributes. Self-reported data about a participant’s attitudes and beliefs can be a helpful tool. However, this information doesn’t always carry through to actual actions. Researchers working to refine political messaging to help animals should incorporate methods like choice-based conjoint that attempt to mimic reality. For example, these approaches could resemble messaging in the form of a speech or social media post, providing important information about how to make political communication as effective as possible. Experimental methods can also help isolate the effects of individual attributes in order to get a more accurate understanding of behavior.
Conclusions
Voters Prefer Candidates Who Propose Stronger Farmed Animal Welfare Regulations
Of the eight policy proposals analyzed in this study, only “Strengthen farm animal welfare regulations to reduce the number of animals on factory farms” resulted in candidates outperforming a candidate who didn’t propose food policy changes. Candidates who proposed to improve these regulations had an average vote share 10.3 percentage points higher than status quo candidates. In other words, the U.S. public is very willing to reward candidates who push for improved conditions for farmed animals.
Liberals were particularly supportive of candidates who proposed improvements to factory farm regulations. Among liberal voters, candidates who proposed to strengthen these regulations received an average of 70.4% of the vote after controlling for other factors. Among moderates, candidates proposing this change received 58.3% of the vote. Among conservatives, these candidates received 55.0% of the vote (marginally significant). In other words, adopting this policy helped—or at the very least, did not harm—candidates regardless of where a voter fell on the political spectrum. This general trend held across men and women/non-binary voters, voters of different races and ethnicities, and different voter likelihoods. It also held across candidate gender and race and ethnicity.
Cultivated Meat Is Unpopular With Voters
Candidates who proposed to “Ban the sale of lab-grown meat” averaged a 53.8% vote share, while candidates who proposed to “Increase public investment in cultivated meat (also known as cell-cultured meat)” averaged only 45.1% of the vote. Candidates who proposed increasing government funding for cultivated meat also performed worse than candidates who proposed no changes to food policy. Among conservatives, banning the sale of cultivated meat was the single most popular policy proposal and increasing public investment in cultivated meat was the least popular. Among women, a cultivated meat ban was the second most popular policy proposal. While liberals found candidates more empathetic when they proposed increasing public funding for cultivated meat, moderates found them more empathetic when they proposed banning cultivated meat.
Together, these results suggest a wariness toward cultivated meat in large segments of the U.S. population. Cultivated meat has played a more prominent role in the news and politics than some of the other policy topics included in this study. At the time this report was written, seven states had banned the sale of cultivated meat: Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, and Texas (Fitzgerald, 2025). As a result, more of the public may have developed firm opinions on this topic than they have with other topics we measured.
Additional factors could also be at play. For example, other policy proposals in this study, like strengthening animal welfare regulations on factory farms, may have made a more direct link to animal welfare in participants’ minds. Other policy proposals also relate to institutional change rather than focusing on a product that could end up on a participant’s plate. In other words, most of the policy proposals didn’t name a specific product, unlike the cultivated meat proposals. Instead, they focused on changes by institutional actors and the animal agriculture industry aimed at changing practices rather than expanding or limiting the availability or a new product. The public may be more comfortable with improved standards for known products, for example, rather than the introduction of a less familiar product, especially if the increased welfare measures minimize the need for individual change. Perceptions of cultivated meat’s “unnaturalness” may also be contributing to participants’ hesitancy toward cultivated meat (Wilks, Hornsey, and Bloom, 2021).
Rather than writing off cultivated meat as politically unpopular, advocates could make additional efforts to educate the public on the benefits of these products. Public opinion is far from static. Advocates can and should work to shift the perceptions around unpopular topics as a way of helping animals.
Voters Don’t Want Politicians To Subsidize The Meat Industry
The single least popular policy proposal in terms of effect on vote share was “Increase government subsidies to meat companies.” All else equal, candidates who endorsed this policy were expected to receive only 39.4% of the vote share. The inverse policy, “Reduce government subsidies to meat companies,” didn’t result in as strong of an effect—candidates who endorsed this policy averaged 53.4% of the vote share.
Increasing subsidies for meat companies is one of only two policy proposals for which candidates were expected to get less than 50% of the vote among conservatives. The other policy, increasing public investment in cultivated meat, was also focused on government funds going to private companies. Regardless of the underlying ideological reasonings, there is opposition across the political spectrum to increasing subsidies to meat companies.
In other words, voters in this study may not have minded candidates who proposed cutting subsidies to the animal agriculture industry, but they really didn’t like candidates who wanted to fund factory farms. This finding may help dispel the myth that the U.S. public is overwhelmingly pro-meat.
Animal-Related Policies Can Shape Candidates’ Perceived Likability, Competence, And Empathy
It may not be particularly surprising that candidates who proposed many of the pro-animal policies in this study were seen as more empathetic than other candidates. However, these candidates were often seen as more likable as well. Compared to candidates who proposed no policy change, voters found candidates who proposed strengthening factory farm welfare regulations to be more likable. Candidates who proposed less animal-friendly policies, like “Stop regulations that limit the number of animals on farms” and “Increase government subsidies to meat companies” were seen as less likable. Voters also rated candidates as more competent when they proposed to “Strengthen farm animal welfare regulations to reduce the number of animals on factory farms.”
Voters' perceptions of candidates as empathetic, likable, and competent aren’t guaranteed to translate directly into higher vote shares. However, high marks in all of these categories may contribute to a more positive image in the minds of voters.
Framing Arguments And The Need For Experimental Studies
Participants clearly found certain framing arguments to be more persuasive than others. However, every argument resulted in slightly less self-reported support for food policy changes aimed at lessening U.S. meat consumption compared to no argument at all.
Perhaps more importantly, voters were no more or less likely to vote for a candidate making any of the policy proposals after seeing a specific framing argument. For example, even though the health and environment arguments were rated the most persuasive, there were no clear statistically significant differences in policy support among voters who saw these arguments.
In other words, researchers and advocates interested in shaping political behaviors like voting shouldn’t rely on self-reported data like the persuasiveness measure used in this study. While this can be a useful tool, it is also important to see how different messages actually carry through to the ultimate political action in which we are interested. In this case, the arguments had little to no effect on vote choice. Future research into voting behavior should prioritize methods such as choice-based conjoint, which provide a more realistic proxy for actual behavior.
Future research should also explore other ways of framing meat reduction. The arguments used in this study were introduced simply as “examples of political arguments” rather than coming from, for example, a named and trusted source like a well-known academic or the editorial board of a popular publication. These arguments were also shown as bullet points rather than in a form that might better parallel a voter’s real life experience, like a media clip, a news article, or even a social media post from a politician.
Additional Opportunities For Future Research
This study provides important insights into the possible ways in which policy positions related to farmed animals could affect voter attitudes. However, there are many outstanding questions it does not answer.
In particular, future research should test a variety of ways of wording similar policy proposals to identify the best messaging approaches. Resilience against direct counter messaging is also important. For example, researchers could test how animal welfare-focused proposals fare in the face of claims that they would raise the cost of food, and could also explore ways of countering misleading messages by the animal agriculture industry.
It is also important for researchers to continue exploring ways of shaping public opinion. As noted above, the stances of both politicians and the public more broadly are rarely fixed. The results of studies or polls that show low support for particular policies does not mean that these are losing issues. Instead, advocates and researchers must work to identify ways of generating support for policies that will reduce animal suffering.
Finally, a database or map of state and local politicians in particular who are willing to propose pro-animal policies could be a valuable resource to advocates interested in improving the lives of animals.