Substantial minority of respondents found the argument linking conditions of animal agriculture to those of Wet markets misleading, annoying, or offensive, even in the absence of an advocacy vegan message.
JO ANDERSON: Study participants were 1,000 general population U.S. citizens who were at least 18 years old, recruited through Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel. Panel participants are recruited based on physical addresses, which provides a more representative sample than convenience samples or those that require participants to have a cell phone or computer…
One of the primary goals of this poll was to understand, in a timely manner, whether members of the general public are making the connection between the COVID-19 outbreak and human abuses of animals. Several questions were included to help us understand that connection. The results for these questions are laid out in this section…
This survey found that the U.S. public is not well-informed on the animal origins or implications of COVID-19, the novel coronavirus. Only 10 to 20% of people in the U.S. appear to understand the zoonotic (animal-to-human) origins of the novel coronavirus, and very few people are aware of the threats to life faced by animals used in research or those who depend on tourists for food…
The link between animal agriculture and the outbreak was seen as convincing and logical by the majority of participants… A substantial minority of respondents found the argument misleading, annoying, or offensive–even in the absence of an advocacy message like “go veg” or “reduce your meat consumption”. Moving from education to advocacy increases the risk of reactance (backfire effects)…
For farmed animal advocates, it is tempting to draw links between the origins of COVID-19 and intensive agriculture. While such arguments are not unwarranted given the similarities between the conditions in wet markets and on industrial farms, we advise caution. The link with COVID-19 is not a direct one (as participants’ responses reflect), and over-claiming harms credibility.
Our results show that a carefully-presented, factual argument can be convincing. However, a substantial minority of respondents found the argument misleading, annoying, or offensive–even in the absence of an advocacy message like “go veg” or “reduce your meat consumption.” Moving from education to advocacy increases the chance that reactance (backfire effects) will occur, beyond what we observed in this study by an unknown amount.
Therefore, given that much the U.S. public appears to be uninformed–or even misinformed–about how COVID-19 emerged from the mistreatment of animals, we suggest that advocacy efforts focus on education efforts that are more closely related to this outbreak. If extending the argument further, to farmed animals, we strongly advise using a scientific argument and citing sources like those we have included in this report.
More positively, this survey also found that most people believe animal shelters and sanctuaries should be considered essential services, and there is moderate support for legislation that would protect both animals and human health by restricting animal farming. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: