Political Animals?: How U.S. voters respond to candidates making farmed animal policy proposals

One of the most direct ways of changing the harmful practices of the animal agriculture industry is through government policy. 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. 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.

FAUNALYTICS: In the U.S. alone, billions of chickens, pigs, cows, and other farmed animals are killed every year for food. Despite unimaginable amounts of animal suffering and U.S. diets that exceed recommended guidelines for meat consumption, industrial animal agriculture is thriving. 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. 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, 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…

Key Findings:

1. Voters prefer candidates who support stronger welfare regulations for farmed animals.
2. Voters punish candidates who support the expansion of factory farming.
3. Pro-animal candidates are often seen as more likable, more competent, and more empathetic.
4. Voters are wary of cultivated meat.
5. A bipartisan coalition for farmed animals is possible.

Future research should use experimental methods like choice-based conjoint to isolate cause and effect, as well as the impact of specific attributes. ZACH WULDERK

RELATED VIDEO: